%1P^'/'1'^'         lililliiiliiiiiill 

'^•m^^..  *,i.    -w  p    000  939  661    5 


THE 

CtROUNDSOFCHRISTIANITY  i 

RZAMIMKD   BY   COHPARINO 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WITH  THE  OLD, 


GEORGE  BETHUNE  ENGLISH,  A.M. 


"  First  understand,  then  judge." 

"  Bring  forth  the  people  blind,  although  they  have  eyes ; 

And  deaf,  although  they  have  ears  ; 

Let  them  ptoduce  their  witnesses,  that  they  may  be  jastifled  ; 

Or  let  them  hear  in  their  turn,  and  say,  this  is  TBrB," 

ISAIAli. 


TO   WHICH   IS   ADDED;    A   REVIEW   OF 

THE.  SERMON  ON  THE   MOUNT,    &a, 


THE  REV.  DR.  ZIPSER, 

C1UEP   RABBI  or  ALBA.   (3TT7ULWEISSBMBURO),    IN   BL'NGARV, 


h 


ii 


li 


1868. 


\   ' 


1^ 


THE  ^    .    ^ 

GROUNDS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


EXAMINED    BY    COMPARING 


THE  IE¥  TESTAMENT  WITH  THE  OLD, 


GEORGE  BETHUNE  ENGLISH,  A.M. 


*«  First  understand,  then  judge." 

*'  Bring  forth  the  people  blind,  although  they  have  eyes ; 

And  deaf,  although  they  have  ears. 

Let  them  produce  their  witnesses,  that  they  may  be  justified ; 

Or  let  them  hear  in  their  turn,  and  say,  this  is  teue." 

Isaiah. 


TO   WHICH  IS   ADDED,    A  REVIEW   OF 


THE    SERMON   ON    THE    MOUNT,    &c.. 


THE  REV.  DR.  ZIPSER, 

CHIEF  BABBI  OF   ALBA  (sTUHLWEISSENBURG),   IN   HUNOABT. 


RE-PRINTED  FROM  THE  BOSTON  EDITION,  1813. 
1852. 


TO 

THE  INTELLIGENT  AND  THE  CANDID 

■WHO  ARE 

WILLING  TO  LISTEN  TO  EVERY  OPINION 

THAT  IS  SUPPORTED  BY  REASON; 

AKD 

NOT  AVERSE  TO  BRINGING  THEIR  OWN  OPINIONS 

TO  THE  TEST  OF  EXAMINATION; 

THIS  BOOK 
IS  RESPECTFULLY  DEDICATED 

BY 

THE  AUTHOR. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTBODUCTOBT, SHOWING    THAT    THE    APOSTLES    AND    AUTHORS     OP     THE     NEW     TESTA- 
MENT  ENDEAVOUTl    TO    PROVE    CnRISTIANITY    FROM    THE    OLD. 

CHAPTER  II. 

STATEMENT    OF    THE    QUESTION   IN   DISPUTE. 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE    CHARACTERISTICS   OF    THE    MESSIAH,    AS    GIVEN    BY    THE    HEBREW   FROPHETS. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    CHARACTER   OF   JESUS  TESTED    BY    THOSE  CHARACTERISTIC    MARKS    OF  THE  MESSIAH, 
GIVEN    BY    THE    PHROPHETS    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT. 

CHAPTER  V. 

EXAMINATION   OP    THE    ARGUMENTS    FROM    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT   ADDUCED    IN    THE    NEW, 
TO    PROVE    THAT   JESUS    OF    NAZARETH    WAS    THE    MESSIAH. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

EXAMINATION    OF    THE    MEANING    OF    THE    PHRASE    "THIS    WAS   DONE    THAT  IT    MIGHT    BE 
FULFILLED." 

CHAPTER  VII. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  ARGUMENTS   ALLEDGED    FROM  THE    HEBREW  PROPHETS,   TO  PROVE 
THAT   JESUS   WAS   THE    MESSIAH. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

STATEMENT    OF    ARGUMENTS   WHICH    PROVE    THAT    JESUS    WAS   NOT    THE  MESSIAH    OF    THE 
OLD    TESTAMENT. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

ON    THE    CHARACTER   OF    JESUS    OF    NAZARETH,    AND     THE     WEIGHT     TO     BE     ALLOWED    TO 
THE    ARGUMENT   OF   MARTYRDOM,    AS   A    TEST    OP    TRUTH,    IN    THIS    QUESTION. 

CHAPTER  X. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 


2107116 


IV 

CHAPTER  XL 

'WHETHER   THE    MOSAIC    LAW     BE     REPRESENTED     IN    THE    OLD     TESTAMENT     AS    A 
TEMPOBARY,    OR   A    PERPETUAL,    INSTITUTION. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

ON   THE    CHARACTER    OF    PAUL,   AND    HIS    MANNER    OF    REASONING. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

EXAMINATION  OF  SOME  DOCTRINES  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  DERIVED  FROIf  THE 
CABBALA,    THE    ORIENTAL    PHILOSCPHY,    AND    THE    TENETS    OF    ZOROASTER. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

A  CONSIDERATION  OF  THE  "  GIFT  OF  TONGUES,"  AND  OTHER  MIRACULOUS  POWERS, 
ASCRIBED  TO  THE  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANS;  AND  WHETHER  RECORDED  MIRACLES 
ARE  INFALLIBLE  PROOFS  OF  THE  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  OF  DOCTRINES  SAID  TO 
BATB    BEEN    CONFIRMED    BY    THEM. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

APPLICATION  OF  THE  TWO  TESTS,  SAID  IN  DEUTERONOMY  TO  HAVE  BEEN  GIVEN 
BY  GOD  AS  DISCRIMINATING  A  TRUE  PROPHET  FROM  A  FALSE  ONE,  TO  THE 
CHARACTER    AND    ACTIONS    OF    JESUS. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  EVIDENCE,  EXTERNAL  AND  INTERNAL,  IN  FAVOUR  OF  THE 
CREDIBILITY    OF    THE    GOSPEL    HISTORY. 

CHAPTER  XVIL 

«N   THE     PECULIAR    MORALITY    OF    THE     NEW    TESTAMENT,     AS    IT     AFFECTS    INDIVIDUALS. 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

ON  THE  PECULIAR  MORALITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  AS  IT  AFFECTS  NATIONS  AND 
POLITICAL    SOCIETIES. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

A  CONSIDERATION  OF  SOME  SUPPOSED  ADVANTAGES  ATTRIBUTED  TO  THE  NEW,  OVER 
THE  ODD,  TESTAMENT;  AND  WHETHER  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  A  RESURRECTION  AND  A 
LIFE  TO  COME,  IS  NOT  TAUGHT  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  IN  CONTRADICTION  TO 
THE  ASSERTION,  THAT  "  LIFE  AND  IMMORTALITY  WERE  BROUGHT  TO  LIGHT  BY 
THE    GOSPEL." 

CONCLUSION. 

APPENDIX. 

ADDENDA. 

Tffig   SERMON   ON   TEE   MOrNT,   Ac. 

FREFACE. 


PREFACE. 


The  celebrated  Dr.  Price,  in  his  valuable  "  Observations  on  the  Impor- 
tance of  the  American  Revolution,"  addressed  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  observes,  that  "  It  is  a  common  opinion,  that  there  are  some  doctrines 
so  sacred,  and  others  of  so  bad  a  tendency,  that  no  public  discussion  of  them 
ought  to  be  allowed.  Were  this  a  right  opinion,  all  the  persecution  that  has 
ever  been  practised  would  he  justified ;  for  if  it  is  a  part  of  the  duty  of  civil 
magistrates  to  prevent  the  discussion  of  such  doctrines,  they  must,  in  doing 
this,  act  on  their  own  judgments  of  the  nature  and  tendency  of  doctrines  ;  and, 
consequently,  they  must  have  aright  to  prevent  the  discussion  of  all  doctrines 
which  they  think  to  be  too  sacred  for  discussion,  or  too  dangerous  in  their 
tendency ;  and  this  right  they  must  exercise  in  the  only  way  in  which  civil 
power  is  capable  of  exercising  it — « by  inflicting  penalties  upon  all  who 
oppose  sacred  docti'ines,  or  who  maintain  pernicious  opinions.'  In  Maho- 
metan countries,  therefore,  magistrates  would  have  a  right  to  silence  and 
punish  all  who  oppose  the  divine  mission  of  Mahomet,  a  doctrine  there 
reckoned  of  the  most  sacred  nature.  The  like  is  true  of  the  doctrines  of 
transubstantiation,  worship  of  the  Vii-gin  Mary,  &c.  &c.,  in  Popish  countries; 
and  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  satisfaction,  &c.,  in  Protestant  countries. 
All  such  laws  are  right,  if  the  opinion  I  have  mentioned  is  right.  But,  in 
reality,  civil  power  has  nothing  to  do  in  such  matters,  and  civil  governors  go 
miserably  out  of  their  proper  province,  whenever  they  take  upon  them  the 
care  of  truth,  or  the  support  of  any  doctrinal  points.  They  are  not  judges 
of  truth,  and  if  they  pretend  to  decide  about  it,  they  will  decide  wrong. 
This  all  the  countries  under  heaven  think  of  the  application  of  civil  power  to 
doctrinal  points  in  every  country,  but  their  own.  It  is  indeed  superstition, 
idolatry,  and  nonsense,  that  civil  power  at  present  supports  almost  every 
where,  under  the  idea  of  supporting  sacred  truth,  and  opposing  dangerous 
error.  Would  not,  therefore,  its  perfect  neutrality  be  the  greatest  blessing  ? 
Would  not  the  interest  of  truth  gain  unspeakably,  were  all  the  rulers  of 
states  to  aim  at  nothing  but  keeping  the  peace  ;  or  did  they  consider  them- 
selves bound  to  take  care,  not  of  the  future,  but  the  present,  interest  of  man ; 
not  of  their  soids  and  of  \heix  faith,  but  of  their  persons  and  property ;  not  of 
any  ecclesiastical,  but  sectdar,  matters  only  ?" 

"All  the  experience  oi  past  time  proves,  that  the  consequence  of  allowing 
civil  power  to  judge  of  the  nature  and  tendency  of  doctrines,  must  be  making 
it  a  hindrance  to  the  progress  of  truth,  and  an  enemy  to  the  improvement  of 
the  world." 

"  I  would  extend  these  observations  to  all  points  of  faith,  however  sacred 
they  may  be  deemed.  Nothing  reasonalle  can  suffer  by  discussion.  All 
doctrines,  really  sacred,  must  be  clear,  and  incapable  of  being  opposed  with 
success." 


VI 

"  That  immoral  tendency  of  doctrines,  which  has  been  urged  as  a  reason 
against  allowing  the  public  discussion  of  them,  may  be  either  avowed  and 
direct ;  or  only  a  consequence  with  which  they  are  charged.  If  it  is  avowed 
and  direct,  such  doctrines  certainly  will  not  spread ;  the  principles  rooted  in 
human  nature  will  resist  them,  and  the  advocates  of  them  will  bo  soon  dis- 
graced. If,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  only  a  consequence  with  which  a  doctrine 
is  charged,  it  should  be  considered  how  apt  all  parties  are  to  charge  the 
doctrines  they  oppose  with  bad  tendencies.  It  is  well  known  that  Calvinists 
and  Arminians,  Trinitarians  and  Socinians,  Fatalists  and  Frce-Willers,  are 
continually  exclaiming  against  one  another's  opinions,  as  dangerous  and 
licentious.  Even  Christianity  itself  could  not,  at  its  first  introduction, 
escape  this  accusation.  The  professors  of  it  were  considered  as  atheists, 
because  they  opposed  pagan  idolatry  ;  and  their  religion  was,  on  this  account, 
reckoned  a  destructive  and  pernicious  enthusiasm.  If,  therefore,  the  rulers 
of  a  state  are  to  prohibit  the  propagation  of  all  doctrines,  in  which  they 
apprehend  immoral  tendencies,  an  opening  will  be  made,  as  I  have  before 
observed,  for  every  species  of  persecution.  There  will  be  no  doctrine,  however 
true  or  important,  the  avowal  of  which  will  not,  in  some  country  or  other,  be 
subjected  to  civil  penalties." 

These  observations  bear  the  stamp  of  good  sense,  and  their  truth  has 
been  abundantly  confirmed  by  experience  ;  and  it  is  the  peculiar  honour  of 
the  United  States,  that  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of  these  observa- 
tions, perfect  freedom  of  opinion  and  of  speech,  are  here  established  by  law, 
and  are  the  birthright  of  every  citizen  thereof.  Our  country*  is  the  only  one 
which  has  not  been  guilty  of  the  folly  ot  establishing  the  ascendency  of  one 
set  of  religious  opinions,  and  persecuting  or  tolerating  all  others,  and  which 
does  not  permit  any  man  to  harrass  his  neighbour,  because  he  thinks 
differently  from  himself.  In  consequence  of  these  excellent  institutions, 
difference  of  religious  sentiment  makes  here  no  breach  in  private  friendship, 
and  works  no  danger  to  the  public  security.  This  is  as  it  should  be ;  for,  in 
matters  of  opinion,  especially  with  regard  to  so  important  a  thing  as  religion, 
it  is  every  man's  natural  right  and  duty  to  think  for  himself,  and  to  judge 
upon  such  evidence  as  he  can  procure,  after  he  has  used  his  best  endeavom-s 
to  get  information.  Human  decisions  are  of  no  weight  in  this  matter,  for 
another  man  has  no  more  right  to  determine  what  my  opinions  shall  be, 
than  I  have  to  determine  what  another  man's  opinions  shall  be.  It  is  amazing 
that  one  man  can  dare  to  presume  he  has  such  a  right  over  another ; 
and  that  any  man  can  be  so  weak  and  credulous,  as  to  imagine,  that 
another  has  such  right  over  him. 

As  it  is  every  man's  natural  right  and  duty  to  think  and  judge  for  himself 
in  matters  of  opinion  ;  so  he  should  be  allowed  freely  to  bring  forward  and 
defend  his  opinions,  and  to  endeavoui-,  when  he  judges  proper,  to  convince 
others  also  of  their  truth. 

For  unless  all  men  are  allowed  freely  to  profess  their  opinions,  the 
means  of  information,  with  respect  to  opinions,  must,  in  a  great  measure,  be 
wanting ;  and  just  inquiries  into  their  truth  be  almost  impracticable ;  and, 
by  consequence,  our  natural  right  and  duty  to  think  and  judge  for  ourselves, 
must  be  rendered  almost  nugatory,  or  be  subverted,  for  want  of  materials 
whereon  to  employ  our  minds.  A  man  by  himself,  without  communication 
with  other  minds,  can  make  no  great  progress  in  knowledge ;  and  besides, 
an  individual  is  indisposed  to  use  his  own  strength,  when  an  undisturbed 

*  In  the  present  day,  various  attempts,  insidious  and  powerful,  have  been  made, 
even  here,  to  coerce  in  matters  of  conscience,  and  to  overthrow  those  wise  barriers 
to  the  destructive  effects  of  sectarian  fanaticism  and  intolerance,  which  the  great 
founders  of  the  Republic,  to  their  everlasting  glory,  erected.— D. 


Vll 

laziness,  ignorance,  and  prejudice  give  him  full  satisfaction  as  to  the  truth  of 
his  opinions.  But  if  there  be  a  free,  profession,  or  communication  of  senti- 
ments, every  man  will  have  an  opportunity  of  acquainting  himself  with  all 
that  can  be  known  from  others ;  and  many  for  their  own  satisfaction  will 
make  inquiries,  and,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  truth  of  opinions,  will  desire  to 
know  all  that  can  be  said  on  any  question. 

If  such  liberty  of  professing  and  teaching  be  not  allowed,  error,  if 
authorized,  will  keep  its  ground  ;  and  truth,  if  dormant,  will  never  be  brought 
to  light ;  or,  if  authorized,  will  be  supported  on  a  false  and  absurd  foundation, 
and  such  as  would  equally  support  error ;  and,  if  received  on  the  ground  of 
authority,  will  not  be  in  the  least  meritorious  to  its  professors. 

Besides,  not  to  encourage  capable  and  honest  men  to  profess  and  defend 
their  ojiinions  when  different  from  ours,  is  to  distrust  the  truth  of  our  owq 
opinions,  and  to  fear  the  light.  Such  conduct  must,  in  a  country  of  sense 
and  learning,  increase  the  number  of  unbelievers  already  so  greatly  com- 
plained of ;  who,  if  they  see  matters  of  opinion  not  allowed  to  be  professed, 
and  impartially  debated,  think,  justly  perhaps,  that  they  hay q  foul  play,  and, 
therefore,  reject  many  things  as  false  and  ill  grounded,  which  otherwise  they 
might  perhaps  receive  as  truths. 

The  grand  principle  of  men  considei'ed  as  having  relation  to  the  Deity, 
and  under  an  obligation  to  be  religious,  is,  that  they  ought  to  consult  their 
reason,  and  seek  eveiy  where  for  the  best  instruction ;  and  of  Christians  and 
Protestants  the  duty,  and  professed  principle  is,  to  consult  reason  and  the 
Scripture,  as  the  rule  of  their  faith  and  practice. 

But  how  can  these,  which  are  practical  princii^les,  be  duly  put  in  practice, 
unless  all  be  at  liberty,  at  all  times,  and  in  all  points,  to  consider,  and  debate 
with  others,  (as  well  as  with  themselves,)  what  reason  and  Scripture  says ; 
and  to  profess,  and  act  openly,  according  to  what  they  are  convinced  they 
say  ?  How  can  we  become  better  informed  with  I'egard  to  religion,  than  by 
using  the  best  means  of  information?  which  consist  in  consulting  reason 
and  scripture,  and  calling  in  the  aid  of  others.  And  of  what  use  is  it  to 
consult  reason,  and  Scripture  at  all,  as  any  means  of  information,  if  we  are 
not,  upon  conviction,  to  follow  their  dictates  ? 

No  man  has  any  reason  to  apprehehd  any  ill  consequences  to  truth,  (for 

which  alone  he  ought  to  have  any  concern,)  ivoTtifree  inquiry  and  debate 

For  truth  is  not  a  thing  to  dread  examination,  but  when yatVZv  proposed  to  an 
unbiassed  understanding,  is  like  light  to  the  eye ;  it  must  distinguish  itself 
from  error,  as  light  does  distinguish  itself  from  darkness.  For,  while  free 
debate  is  allowed,  truth  is  in  no  danger,  for  it  will  never  want  a  professor 
thereof,  nor  an  advocate  to  offer  some  plea  in  its  behalf.  And  it  can  never 
be  wholly  banished,  but  where  human  decisions,  backed  by  human  power, 
carry  all  before  them. 

We  ought  to  examine  ih.e  foundations  of  opinions,  not  only,  that  we  may 
attain  the  discovery  of  truth ;  but  we  ought  to  do  so,  on  this  account,  because 
that  it  is  our  duty ;  and  the  way  to  recommend  ourselves  to  the  favour  of 
God.  For  opinions,  how  true  soever,  when  the  effect  of  education  or  tradi- 
tion, or  interest,  or  passion,  can  never  recommend  a  man  to  God.  For  those 
ways  have  no  merit  in  them,  and  are  the  worst  a  man  can  possibly  take  to 
obtain  truth;  and  therefore,  though  they  may  be  objects  of  forgiveness,  they 
can  never  be  of  reward  from  Him. 

Having  premised  these  observations  in  order  to  persuade,  and  dispose 
the  reader  to  be  candid,  I  will  now  declare  the  motives,  which  induced  me  to 
submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  intelligent,  the  contents  of  this  volume. 
The  Author  has  spared,  he  thinks,  no  pains  to  arrive  at  certain  Truth  ia 
matters  of  religion  ;  the  sense  of  which  is  what  distinguishes  man  from  the 


VIU 

brute.  Anil  in  this  most  important  subject  that  can  employ  the  human 
understanding,  he  has  been  particularly  desirous  to  become  acquainted  with 
the  Grounds,  and  Doctrines  of  the  Christian  Religion ;  and  nothing  but  tho 
difficulties,  which  he  in  this  volume  lays  before  the  public,  staggers  his  faith 
in  it. 

It  may  perhaps  add  to  the  interest  the  Reader  may  take  in  this  work  to 
inform  him,  that  the  Author  ivas  a  believer  in  the  religion  of  tho  New  Testa- 
ment, after  what  he  conceived  to  be  a  sufficient  examination  of  its  evidence 
for  a  divine  origin.  He  had  terminated  an  examination  of  the  controversy 
with  the  Deists  to  his  own  satisfaction,  i.  e.  he  felt  convinced  that  their 
objections  were  not  insurmountable,  when  he  turned  his  attention  to  tho 
consideration  of  the  ancient,  and  obscure  controversy  between  the  Christians 
and  the  Jews.  His  curiosity  was  deeply  interested  to  examine  a  subject  in 
truth  so  little  known,  and  to  ascertain  the  causes,  and  the  reasons,  which 
had  prevented  a  people  more  interested  in  tJie  truth  of  Christianity  than  any 
other  from  believing  it :  and  he  set  down  to  the  subject  without  any  suspicion, 
that  the  examination  would  not  terminate  in  convincing  him  still  more  in 
favour  of  Avhat  were  then  his  opinions.  After  a  long,  thorough,  and  start- 
ling examination  of  their  Books,  together  with  all  the  answers  to  them  he 
could  obtain  from  a  Library  amply  furnished  in  this  respect,  he  was  finally 
very  reluctantly  compelled  to  feel  persuaded,  by  proofs  he  could  neither 
refute,  nor  evade,  that  how  easily  soever  Christians  might  answer  the  Deists, 
so  called,  the  Jews  were  clearly  too  hard  for  them.  Because  they  set  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  in  opposition,  and  reduce  Christians  to  this  fatal 
dilemma. — Either  the  Old  Testament  contains  a  Revelation  from  God ;  or  it 
does  not.  If  it  does,  then  the  New  Testament  connot  be  from  God,  because 
it  is  palpably,  and  importantly  repugnant  to  the  Old  Testament  in  doctrine, 
and  some  other  things.  Now  Jews,  and  Christians,  each  of  them  admit  the 
Old  Testament  as  containing  a  divine  Revelation;  consequently  the  Jews 
cannot,  and  Christians  ought  not  to  receive  and  allow  any  thing  as  a  Revelation 
from  God  which.  JlatJy  contradicts  a  former  by  them  acknowledged  Revelation: 
because  it  cannot  be  sujiposed  that  God  will  contradict  himself.  On  the  other 
hand — if  the  Old  Testament  be  not  from  God,  still  the  New  Testament  must 
go  down,  because  it  asserts  that  the  Old  Testament  is  a  revelation  from  God, 
and  builds  upon  it  as  a  foundation.  And  if  the  foundation  fails,  how  can 
the  house  stand  ?  The  Author  pledges  himself  to  the  Reader,  to  prove,  that 
they  establish  this  dilemma  completely.  And  he  cannot  help  thinking,  that 
there  is  reason  to  believe,  that  if  both  sides  of  this  strangely  neglected  con- 
troversy had  been  made  public  in  times  past,  and  become  known,  that  the 
consequences  would  have  been  long  ago  fatal  at  least  to  the  New  Testament. 

The  Author  has  been  earnestly  dissuaded  from  making  public  the 
contents  of  this  volume  on  account  of  apprehended  mischievous  conse- 
quences. He  thought,  however,  that  the  age  of  pious  frauds  ought  to  be 
past,  and  their  principle  discarded,  at  least  in  Protestant  countries.  Decep- 
tion and  error  are  always,  sooner  or  later,  discovered ;  and  truth  in  the  long 
run,  both  in  politics,  and  religion,  will  never  be  ultimately  harmful.  If 
■what  the  Book  states  is  true,  it  ought  to  be  known,  if  it  is  erroneous  ;  it  can, 
and  will,  be  refuted. 

The  Author  therefore  makes  it  public,  for  these  reasons, — because  he 
thinks,  that  the  matter  contained  in  the  book,  is  true,  and  important, — 
because  he  wished,  and  found  it  necessary  to  justify  himself  from  contempt- 
ible misrepresentations  uttered  behind  his  back ;  and  to  give  to  those  who 
know  him,  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  past  conduct,  of  which  those  to 
whom  he  is  known,  cannot  be  ignorant ;  and  finally,  he  thought  it  right,  and 
proper,  and  humane,  to  give  to  the  world  a  work  which  contained  the 


IX 

reasons  for  the  unbelief  of  the  countrymen  of  Jesus ;  who  for  almost  eighteen 
hundred  years  have  been  made  the  unresisting  victims  of,  as  the  reader  will 
find,  groundless  misrepresentation,  and  the  most  amazing  cruelty ;  because 
they  refused  to  believe  what  it  was  impossible  that  they  should  believe,  on 
account  of  reasons  their  persecutors  did  not  know,  and  refused  to  be  in- 
formed of. 

If  the  arguments  and  statements  contained  in  this  volume  should  be 
found  to  be  cori-ect,  he  believes  that  every  honest  and  candid  man,  after  his 
first  surprise  that  they  should  not  have  been  made  known  before,  will  feel 
for  the  victims  of  a  mistake  so  singular  and  so  ancient  as  the  one  which  is 
the  subject  of  the  following  pages  ;  and  will  think  with  the  author,  that  it  is 
time,  high  time,  that  the  truth  should  be  known,  and  justice  be  done  to  them.* 

There  is  not  in  existence  a  more  singular  instance  of  the  mischievous 
mistakes  arising  from  taking  things  for  granted  which  require  proof,  than  the 
case  before  the  reader.  The  world  has  all  along  been  in  total  error  with 
regard  to  the  reasons  and  the  motives  which  have  prevented  the  Hebrew 
nation  from  receiving  the  system  of  the  New  Testament.  They  have  been 
successfully  accused  of  incorrigible  blindness  and  obstinacy ;  and  while 
volumes  upon  volumes  have  been  written  against  them,  and  the  arguments 
therein  contained,  supported  and  enforced  by  the  power  of  the ;  Inquisition, 
and  the  oppressions  of  all  Christendom,  these  unfortunate  people  have  not 
been  willingly  suffered  to  offer  to  the  world  one  word  in  their  own  defence. 
They  have  not  been  allowed,  after  hearing  with  patience  both  arguments, 
and  "  railing  accusations"  in  abundance,  to  answer  in  their  turn  ;  but  have 
been  compelled,  through  the  fear  of  confiscation,  persecution,  and  death,  to 
leave  misapprehensions  unexplained,  and  misrepresentations  unrefuted. 

Is  it  then  to  be  wondered  at,  that  mankind  have  considered  their  adver- 
sai*ies  as  in  the  right,  and  that  deserted  by  reason,  and  even  their  own 
Scriptures,  they  were  supported  in  their  opinion  only  by  a  blind  and  perti- 
nacious obstinacy,  more  worthy  of  wonder  than  curiosity  ?  Alas !  the  world 
did  not  consider,  that  nothing  was  more  easy  than  to  confute  people  whose 
tongues  were  frozen  by  the  terror  of  the  Inquisition !  !  But,  thanks  to  the 
good  sense  of  this  enlightened  age,  those  times  are  past  and  gone.  There  is 
now  one  happy  country  where  freedom  of  speech  is  allowed,  where  every 
harmless  religious  opinion  is  protected  by  law,  and  where  every  opinion  is 
listened  to  that  is  supported  by  reason.  The  time,  I  trust,  is  now  come 
when  the  substantial  arguments  of  this  oppressed,  and,  in  this  respect, 
certainly  calumniated,  people,  may  be  produced,  and  their  reasons  set  forth, 
without  the  fear  of  harm,  and  with  the  hope  of  a  hearing  from  the  intelli- 
gent and  the  candid.  They,  we  believe,  will  be  fully  convinced,  that  their 
adversaries  have  for  so  long  a  time  triumphed  over  them  without  measure, 
only  because  they  have  been  suffered  to  do  so  without  contradiction. 

The  reader  is  assured,  that,  notwithstanding  the  subject,  he  will  find 
nothing  in  this  volume  but  what  is  considered  by  the  author  to  be  fair  and 

*  "  Do  you  know  (says  Rousseau)  of  many  Christians  who  have  taken  the  pains 
to  examine,  with  care,  what  the  Jews  have  to  say  against  them  ?  If  some  persons 
have  seen  any  thing  of  the  kind,  it  is  in  the  books  of  Christians.  A  fine  way,  truly, 
to  get  instructed  in  the  arguments  of  their  adversaries !  But  what  can  they  do  ? 
If  any  one  should  dare  to  publish  among  us,  books,  in  which  he  openly  favours  their 
opinions,  we  punish  the  author,  the  editor,  the  bookseller.  This  policy  is  convenient^ 
and  sure  always  to  be  in  the  right.  There  is  a  pleasure  in  refuting  people  who  dars 
not  open  their  lips" — (Emilius.)  In  the  same  work  he  says  that  "  he  will  never  be 
convinced  that  the  Jews  have  not  something  strong  to  say,  till  they  shall  be  permitted 
to  speak  for  themselves  without  fear,  and  vrithout  restraint."  It  was  this  hint  of 
Rousseau  which  first  excited  the  author's  curiosity  with  regard  to  the  subject  of  this 
book— E. 


liberal  argument ;  and  such  no  honest  man  ought  to  decline  loolcing  in  the 
face.  Ho  has  endeavoured  to  discuss  the  important  subject  of  the  book  in 
the  most  inoffensive  manner ;  for  he  has  no  wish,  and  claims  no  right,  to 
wound  the  feelings  of  those  who  differ  from  him  in  opinion.  There  is  not, 
nor  ought  there  to  be,  a  word  of  reproach  in  it,  against  the  moral  character 
of  Jesus,  or  the  twelve  Apostles  ;  and  the  utmost  the  author  attempts  to  prove 
is,  that  their  system  was  founded,  not  upon  fraud  and  imposture,  but  upon  a 
mistake.  After  the  deaths  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  it  was  indeed  aided 
and  supported  by  very  bad  means ;  but  its  Jirst  founders,  the  author  believes, 
were  guilty  of  no  other  crime  than  that  of  being  mistaken  ;  a  very  common 
one  indeed. 

He  hopes,  therefore,  that  such  a  discussion  as  the  one  now  laid  before 
the  public,  will  he  fairly  met,  and  fairly  answered,  if  answered  at  all,  and 
that  recourse  will  not  be  had  to  dishonest  and  ungentlemanly  misrepresenta- 
tions, and  calling  names,  in  order  to  prevent  people  frem  examining  things 
they  have  a  right  to  know,  and  in  order  to  blind  and  frighten  the  public,  the 
jury  to  which  he  appeals.  It  is  infallibly  true,  that  the  knowledge  of  truth 
is,  and  must  be  beneficial  to  mankind ;  and  that,  in  the  long  run,  it  never  was, 
and  never  can  be,  harmful.  It  is  equally  certain,  that  God  would  never  give 
a  Revelation  so  slightly  founded  as  to  be  endangered  by  any  sophistry  of  man. 
If  the  Christian  system  be  from  God,  it  will  certainly  stand,  no  human  power 
can  overthrow  it ;  and,  therefore,  no  sincere  Christian  who  believes  the  New 
Testament,  ought  to  be  afraid  to  meet  half  way  the  objections  of  any  one 
who  offers  them  with  fairness,  and  expresses  them  in  decent  language  ;  and 
no  sensible  Christian  ought  to  shut  his  ears  against  his  neighbour,  who 
respectfully  asks  "  a  reason  for  the  faith  that  is  in  him." 

The  author  has  been  told,  indeed,  that,  "supposing  the  Christian 
system  to  be  unfounded,  yet  that  it  is  reasonable  to  believe,  that  the  Supreme 
Being  would  view  any  attempts  to  disturb  it,  with  displeasure,  on  account  of 
its  moral  effects."  But  is  not  this  something  like  absui-dity  ?  Can  God  have 
made  it  necessary,  that  morals  should  be  founded  on  delusion,  in  order  that 
they  might  be  supported  ?  Can  the  God  of  Truth  be  displeased  to  have  men 
convinced  that  they  have  been  mistaken,  or  imposed  upon,  by  Revelations 
pretended  to  be  from  Him,  which  if  in  fact  not  from  him,  must  be  the 
offspring  either  of  error  or  falsehood?  And  if  the  Christian  system  be,  in 
tinith,  not  from  God,  can  we  suppose,  that  in  his  eyes  its  doctrines  with 
regard  to  Him  are  atoned  for,  by  a  few  good  moral  precepts  ?  Can  we 
suppose,  that  that  Supreme  and  awful  Being  can  feel  .ffmise^/"  honoured,  in 
having  his  creatures  made  to  believe,  that  He  was  once  nine  months  in  the 
womb  of  a  woman ;  that  God,  the  Great  and  Holy,  went  through  all  the 
nastiness  of  infancy  ;  that  he  lived  a  mendicant  in  a  corner  of  the  earth,  and 
was  finally  scourged,  and  hanged  on  a  gibbet  by  his  own  creatures  ?  If  these 
things  be,  in  truth,  all  mistakes,  can  we  suppose,  that  God  is  pleased  in 
having  them  believed  of  Him  ?  On  the  contrary,  can  they,  together  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  I  would  respectfully  ask,  be  possibly  looked  upon  by 

Him  (if  they  are  not  true),  otherwise,  than  as  so  many what  I  forbear  to 

mention.  But  this  is  not  all.  The  reader  is  requested  to  consider,  that  the 
Christian  system  is  built  upon  the  prostrate  necks  of  the  whole  Hebrew 
nation.  It  is  a  tree  which  flourished  in  a  soil  watered  by  their  tears  ;  its 
leaves  grew  green  in  an  atmosphere  filled  with  their  cries  and  groans  ;  and 
its  roots  have  been  moistened  and  fattened  with  their  blood.  The  ruin, 
reproach,  and  sufferings  of  that  people,  are  considered,  by  its  advocates,  as 
the  most  striking  proofs  of  the  Divine  authority  of  the  New  Testament ;  and 
for  almost  eighteen  hundred  years  the  system  contained  in  that  book  has 
been  the  cause  of  miseries  and  afflictions  to  that  nation,  the  most  horrible 
and  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  man. 


XI 

Now,  if  that  system  be  indeed  Divine,  all  this  may  be  very  well,  and  as 
it  should  be.  But  if,  perchance,  it  should  turn  out  to  be  a  mistake  ;  if  it  be, 
in  truth,  not  from  God ;  will  not,  then,  that  system  be  justly  chargeable  with 
all  those  shocking  cruelties  which,  on  account  of  it,  have  been  inflicted  on 
that  people  ? 

If  that  system  be  verily  and  indeed  founded  on  a  mistake,  no  language, 
no  indignation,  can  do  justice  to  its  guilt  in  this  respect.  All  its  good  moral 
eflfects  are  a  mere  drop  of  pure  water  in  that  ocean  of  Jewish  and  Gentile 
blood  it  has  caused  to  be  shed  by  embittering  men's  minds  with  groundless 
prejudices.  And  if  it  be  not  divine;  if  it  be  plainly  and  demonstrably 
proved  to  have  originated  in  error ;  who  is  the  man,  that,  after  considering 
what  has  been  suggested,  will  have  the  heart  to  come  forward,  and  cooly 
Bay,  "  that  it  is  better  that  a  whole  nation  of  men  should  continue,  as  here- 
tofore, to  be  unjustly  hated,  reproached,  cursed,  and  plundered,  and  massacred, 
on  account  of  it,  rather  than  that  the  received  religious  system  should  be 
demonstrated  to  be  founded  on  mistake  ?"  No  !  If  it  be,  in  fact,  founded  on 
mistake,  every  man  of  honour,  honesty,  and  humanity,  will  say,  without 
hesitation,  "  Let  the  delusion  (if  it  is  one)  be  done  away,  which  must  be 
supported  at  the  expense  of  ti'uth,  of  justice,  and  the  happiness  and  respecta- 
bility of  a  whole  nation,  who  are  men  like  ourselves,  and  more  unfortunate 
than  any  others,  in  having  already  suffered  but  too  much  affliction  and 
misery  on  account  of  it."  No !  though  the  moral  effects  ascribed  to  this 
system  of  religion  were  as  good,  as  great,  and  ten  times  greater  than  they 
ever  have  been,  or  can  be,  yet,  if  it  is  a  delusion,  it  would  be  absolutely 
wicked  to  support  it,  since  it  is  erected  upon  the  sufferings,  wretchedness, 
and  oppression  of  a  people  who  compose  millions  of  the  great  family  of 
mankind. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  the  ablest  modern  advocates  for  the  truth  and 
divine  authority  of  the  gospel,  as  if  they  knew  of  no  certain,  demonstrative 
proof  which  could  be  adduced  in  a  case  of  so  much  importance,  seem  to 
content  themselves,  and  expect  their  readers  should  be  satisfied,  with  an 
accumulation  of  probable  arguments  in  its  favour ;  and  it  has  been  even  said, 
that  the  case  admits  of  no  other  kind  of  proof.  If  it  be  so,  the  author 
requests  all  so  persuaded  to  consider,  for  a  moment,  whether  it  could  be 
reconciled  to  any  ideas  of  wisdom  in  an  earthly  potentate,  if  he  should  send 
an  ambassador  to  a  foreign  state  to  mediate  a  negociation  of  the  greatest 
importance,  without  furnishing  him  with  certain,  indubitable  credentials  of 
the  truth  and  authenticity  of  his  mission  ?  And  to  consider  further,  whether 
it  be  just,  or  seemly,  to  attribute  to  the  Omniscient,  Omnipotent  Deity,  a 
degree  of  weakness  and  folly,  which  was  never  yet  imputed  to  any  of  his 
creatures  ?  for  unless  men  are  hardy  enough  to  pass  so  gross  an  affront  upon 
the  tremendous  Majesty  of  Heaven,  the  improbability  that  God  should 
delegate  the  Mediator  of  a  most  important  covenant  to  be  proposed  to  all 
mankind,  without  enabling  him  to  give  them  clear  and,  in  reason,  indisputable 
proof  of  the  divine  authority  of  his  mission,  must  ever  infinitely  outweigh 
the  aggregate  sum  of  all  the  probabilities  which  can  be  accumulated  in  the 
opposite  scale  of  the  balance.  And  to  conclude,  I  presume  it  will  not  be 
denied,  that  the  authenticity  and  celestial  origin  of  any  thing  pretending  to 
be  a  Divine  Revelation,  before  it  has  any  claims  upon  our  faith,  ought  to  be 
made  clear  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt ;  otherwise,  it  can  have  no  just  claims 
to  a  right  to  influence  our  conduct. 

And  as  for  the  opinions  and  the  arguments  contained  in  this  volume,  I 
have  but  trembling  hopes  that  they  will  meet  Avith  favour,  merely  because 
the  author  is  sincere,  and  wishes  to  do  right.  Conscious  that  I  make  a 
perilous  attempt,  in  daring  to  defend  myself  by  attacking  ancient  error 


xu 

Bupportcd  by  multitudes,  with  no  otlior  seconds  besides  Truth  and  Reason,  it 
would  be  bootless  for  me  to  ask  indulgence  for  them  on  account  of  my  good 
intentions  ;  and  as  they  can  derive  no  credit  from  the  authority  of  the  writer, 
I  am  sensible  they  must  fall  by  their  own  weakness,  or  stand  by  their  own 
strength.  I  must  leave  them,  therefore,  to  their  fate ;  and  I  can  cheerfully 
do  it,  without  fear  for  the  issue,  if  the  reader  will  only  be  candid,  and  will 
comply  with  my  earnest  request — "  first  to  understand,  and  then  judge." 

Before  I  conclude  these  prefatory  remarks,  I  would  observe,  that  as 
the  contents  of  this  volume  will  be  perfectly  novel  to  nine  hundred  and 
ninety-nine  out  of  a  thousand,  it  is  but  justice  to  the  public,  and  to  myself, 
to  avow,  that  I  do  not  claim  to  have  originated  all  the  arguments  advanced 
in  this  book.  A  very  considerable  proportion  of  them  were  selected,  and 
derived,  from  ancient  and  curious  Jewish  Tracts,  translated  from  Chaldee 
into  Latin,  very  little  known  even  in  Europe,  and  not  at  all  known  there  to 
any  but  the  curious  and  inquisitive.  And  I  reasonably  hope,  that  discerning 
men  will  be  much  more  disposed  to  weigh  with  candour  the  arguments  herein 
offered,  when  they  consider  that  they  are,  in  many  instances,  the  reasonings 
of  learned,  ancient  and  venerable  men,  who,  in  times  when  the  inquisition 
was  in  vigour,  suffered  under  the  most  bloody  oppression,  and  whose  writings 
were  cautiously  preserved,  and  secretly  handed  down  to  the  seventeenth 
century  in  manuscript,  as  the  printing  of  them  would  assuredly  have  brought 
all  concerned  to  the  stake.  Some  few  other  arguments  were  derived  from 
other  authors,  and  were  taken  from  works  not  so  much  known  as  I  hope 
they  will  be. 

Finally,  I  commit  my  work  to  the  discretion  of  the  good  sense  of  the 
reader,  believing  that  if  he  is  not  convinced,  he  will  at  least  be  interested  ; 
and  hoping  that  he  will  discover  from  the  complexion  of  the  book  (what  my 
own  heart  bears  witness  to)  that  the  author  is  a  sincere  inquirer  after  truth, 
and  perfectly  willing  to  be  convinced  that  he  is  in  error  by  any  one  who  can 
remove  the  difficulties,  and  refute  the  arguments,  now  laid  by  him  before  the 
public,  with  deference  and  respect. 

September  28,  1813. 


THE 


EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


EXAMINED,  BY  COMPARING  THE 


NEW  TESTAMENT  WITH  THE  OLD. 


CHAPTER    I. 


INTRODUCTOKY, — SHOWING   THAT    THE   APOSTLES   AND   AUTHORS  Or  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT, 
ENDEAVOR   TO   PROVE    CHEISTIANITT   FROM    THE    OLD. 


Christianitt  is  founded  on  Judaism,  and  the  New  Testament  upon  the 
Old ;  and  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  person  said  in  the  New  Testament  to  be 
promised  in  the  Old,  under  the  character  and  name  of  the  Messiah  of  the 
Jews,  and  who  as  such  only  claims  the  obedience,  and  submission  of  the 
world.  Accordingly,  it  is  the  design  of  the  authors  of  the  New,  to  prove 
Christianity  from  the  Old,  Testament ;  which  is  said  Jo.  5  :  39,  to  contain 
the  words  of  eternal  life :  and  it  repi'esents  Jesus  and  his  Apostles,  as 
fulfilling  by  their  mission,  doctrines,  and  works,  the  predictions  of  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Law :  which  last  is  said  to  prophecy  of,  or  to  typify 
Christianity. 

Matthew,  for  example,  proves  several  parts  of  Christianity  from  the  Old 
Testament,  either  by  asserting  them  to  be  things  foretold  therein  as  to  come 
to  pass  under  the  gospel  dispensation ;  or  to  be  founded  on  the  notions  of 
the  Old  Testament. 

Thus  he  proves  Mary's  being  with  child  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the 
Angel's  telling  her  she  "  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  call  his  name  Jesus  ;" 
and  the  other  circumstances  attending  his  miraculous  birth  ;  Jesus'  birth  at 
Bethlehem;  his  flight  into  Egypt;  the  slaughter  of  the  infants;  Jesus 
dwelling  at  Nazareth,  and  at  Capernaum,  in  the  borders  of  Zabulon,  and 
Napthali;  his  casting  out  devils,  and  healing  the  sick;  his  eating  with 
Publicans  and  sinners ;  his  speaking  in  parables  that  the  Jews  might  not 
understand  him ;  his  sending  his  disciples  to  fetch  an  ass,  and  a  colt ;  the 
children's  crying  in  the  Temple ;  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the  dead ; 
Jesus'  being  betrayed  by  Judas,  and  Judas'  returning  back  the  thirty  pieces  of 
silver,  and  the  Priest's  buying  the. Potters' Field  with  them;  and  his  hanging 
himself;  &c.  &c.    All  these  events,  and  many  more,  are  said  to  hQ  fulfillments 


of  the  Prophecies  of  the  OUl  Testament,  see  Mat.  1,  2 :  and  4  chapters,  and 
ch.  8:  V.  10,  17,  and  ch.  9:  11,  13,  and  ch.  13:  13,  ch.  21  :  2—7.  15,  1(3,  ch. 
22  :  31,  32,  ch.  2G  :  54,  56,  ch.  27  :  5—10. 

Jesus  himself  is  represented  as  proving  the  ti-uth  of  Christianity  thus. 
He,  joining  himself  to  two  of  his  Disciples,  (Luke  28:  15 — 22,)  after  his 
resurrection,  who  knew  him  not,  and  complaining  of  their  mistake  about  his 
pei"son,  whom  they  now  took  not  to  be  the  Messiah,  because  he  had  been 
condemned  to  death,  and  crucified ;  he,  observing  their  disbelief  of  his 
resurrection,  which  had  been  reported  to  them  by  '•  certain  ivomen  of  their 
acquaintance,"  upon  the  credit  of  the  affirmation  of  angels,  said  unto  them, 
"  O  Fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  Prophets  have  spoken. 
Ought  not  Christ  (i.  e.  the  Messiah)  to  have  suft'ercd.  these  things,  and  to 
enter  into  his  Glory  ?  and  beginning  at  Moses,  and  all  the  Prophets,  ho 
expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptui'es  the  things  concerning  himself." 

Again  he  discoursed  to  all  his  Disciples,  putting  them  in  mind,  that, 
before  his  Death,  he  told  them  (Luke  24  :  44,  40,  47,)  that  "all  things  must 
be  fulfilled  which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  Prophets,  and 
in  the  Psalms  concerning  him;"  adding,  "thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it 
bohoveth  Christ  (i.  e.  the  Messiah)  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the 
third  day ;  and  that  repentance,  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in 
his  name,  beginning  at  Jerusalem." 

When  the  people  of  several  nations.  Acts  2 :  12,  were  amazed  at  the 
Apostles  speaking  in  their  several  tongues,  and  when  many  mocked  the 
Apostles,  saying  they  were  full  of  new  wine,  Peter  makes  a  speech  in  public, 
wherein,  after  saying  they  were  not  drunk,  because  it  was  but  the  third  hour 
of  the  day,  he  endeavours  to  show  them,  that  this  was  spoken  of  by  the 
Prophet  Joel,  and  he  concludes  with  proving  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from 
the  book  of  Psalms. 

Peter,  and  John,  tell  the  people  assembled  at  the  Temple,  "Ihat  God 
had  showed  b>/  the  mouth  of  all  his  Prophets,  that  Christ  should  suffei'," 
Acts  3 :  IS. 

Peter  to  justify  his  preaching  to  the  Gentiles,  concludes  his  discourse 
with  saying,  Acts  10 :  43 — "'  To  Jesus  gave  all  the  Prophets  luitness,  that 
through  his  name  whosoever  (i.  e.  Jew,  or  Gentile)  believeth  in  him,  shall 
receive  remission  of  sins." 

Paul  also  endeavours  to  prove  to  the  Jews  in  the  Synagogue  of  Antioch, 
(Tb.  V.  13)  that  the  history  of  Jesus  was  contained  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  that  ho,  and  Barnabas  were  commanded  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles. 

On  the  occasion  of  a  dispute  among  the  Christians  whether  the  Gentile 
converts  were  to  be  circumcised  after  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  to  observe  the 
Law,  we  find,  that  after  much  disputing,  the  point  was  settled  by  James  by 
quotation  from  Amos. 

The  Bereans  are  highly  extolled  (Acts  17  :  ll,)/'or  searching  the  Scrijjtures, 
i.  e.  the  Old  Testament,  dail>/,  in  order  to  find  out  whether  the  things 
preached  to  them  by  the  Apostles  were  so,  or  no  :  who  if  they  had  not  proved 
tJiese  things,  i.  e.  Christianity  from  the  Old  Testament,  ought,  according  to 
their  own  principles,  to  have  been  rejected  by  the  Bereans,  as  teachers  of  false 
doctrine. 

Paul,  when  accused  before  Agrippa  by  the  Jews,  said  (Acts  26 :  0.)  "  I 
stand,  and  am  judged  for  the  hope  of  the  promise  made  of  God  unto  our 
fathers,"  i.  e.  for  teaching  Christianity,  or  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  to  this  accusation  he  pleads  guilty,  by  declaring  in  the  fullest 
manner,  that  he  taught  nothing  but  the  Doctrines  of  the  Old  Testament. 
"Having  therefore  (says  he)  obtained  help  of  God,  I  continue  unto  this  day, 


Tvitnessing  both  to  small,  and  great,  saying  none  other  things  than  those  which 
the  Prophets,  and  Moses  did  say  shoidd  come,  that  the  Christ  should  suffer,  and 
that  he  should  he  the  first  who  shoidd  rise  from  the  Dead,  and  should  show  light 
unto  the  People,  and  unto  the  Gentiles." 

The  Author  of  the  first  Epistle  to  the -Cor.  says,  15  ch.  v.  4,  that  "  Jesus 
rose  again  from  the  dead  the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures,"  that  is, 
according  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  he  is  supposed  to  gi'ound  this  on  the 
history  of  the  prophet  Jonas,  who  was  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the 
fish's  belly :  though  the  cases  do  not  seem  to  be  parallel,  for  Jesus  being 
buried  on  Friday  evening,  and  rising  on  Sunday  morning,  was  in  the  tomb 
but  one  day  and  two  nights. 

But  most  singular  is  the  argument  of  the  Apostle  Paul  (in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians)  to  prove  Christianity  from  the  Old  Testament.  "  Tell  me 
(says  he,  Gal.  4 :  21.)  ye  that  desire  to  be  under  the  Law,  do  ye  not  hear  the 
Law  ?  For  it  is  written,  that  Abraham  had  two  Sons,  the  one  by  a  bondmaid, 
the  other  by  a  free  woman.  But  he  who  was  of  the  bond  woman,  was  bom 
after  the  flesh ;  but  he  who  was  of  the  free  woman  was  by  promise.  Which 
things  are  an  Allegory.  For  these  are  the  two  covenants,  the  one  from 
Mount  Sinai  which  gendereth  to  bondage,  which  is  Agar.  But  this  Agar  is 
Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  answereth  to  Jerusalem  that  now  is,  and  is  in 
bondage  with  her  Children.  But  Jerusalem  which  is  above  is  free,  which  is 
the  Mother  of  us  all.  For  it  is  written  (Isiah  54  :  1.)  "  Rejoice  thou  Ban-en 
that  bearest  not,  break  forth,  and  cry  thou  that  travailest  not,  for  the 
desolate  hath  many  more  children  than  she  which  hath  an  husband."  Now, 
we  Brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are  children  of  the  Promise.  But  as  then  he  that 
was  born  after  the  flesh  persecuted  him  that  was  bom  after  the  spirit,  even 
so  it  is  now.  But  what  saith  the  Scripture  (Gen.  21 :  10,  12,)  Cast  out  the 
bond  woman,  and  her  son,  for  the  son  of  the  bond  woman  shall  not  be  heir 
with  the  son  of  the  free  woman.  So  then.  Brethren,  we  are  not  the  childi'en 
of  the  bond  woman,  but  of  the  free.  Stand  fast,  therefore,  in  the  Liberty 
wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us  free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  with  the 
yoke  of  bondage." 

In  fine,  the  Author  of  these  Epistles  reasons  in  the  same  singular  manner 
from  the  Old  Testament  throughout ;  which  is,  according  to  him,  (2  Tim.  iii : 
15,)  "  able  to  make  men  wise  unto  Salvation  :"  asserting  himself  and  others 
to  be  ministers  of  the  New  Testament,  as  being  ministers,  not  of  "  the  letter" 
but  of  "  the  Spirit,"  (2  Cor.  iii :  6.)  That  is,  of  the  Old  Testament,  spiritually 
understood;  and  endeavoui-ing  to  prove,  especially  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  that  Christianity  was  veiled  and  contained  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  was  implied  in  the  Jewish  history,  and  Law,  both  "which  he  considers  as 
types  and  shadows  of  Chi'istianity. 

CHAPTER  n. 


STATEMENT    OF    THE    QUESTION    IN   DISPUTE. 

How  Christianity  depends  on  the  Old  Testament,  or  what  proofs  are  to 
be  met  with  therein  in  behalf  of  Christianity,  are  the  subjects  of  almost  all 
the  numerous  books  written  by  divines,  and  other  apologists  for  Chiistianity ; 
but  the  chief  and  principal  of  these  proofs  may  be  justly  supposed  to  be 
urged  in  the  New  Testament  itself,  by  the  authors  thereof ;  who  relate  the 
history  of  the  first  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  profess  themselves  to  bo 
apostles  of  Jesus,  or  companions  of  the  Apostles. 


Some  of  these  proofs,  as  a  specimen,  have  been  already  adduced.  And 
if  they  are  valid  proofs,  then  is  Christianity  strongly  and  invincibly  established 
on  its  true  foundations. 

It  is  established  upon  its  true  foundations,  because  Jesus  and  his 
Apostles  did,  as  -we  have  seen,  ground  Christianity  on  those  proofs ;  and  it  is 
strongly  and  invincibly  established  on  those  foundations,  because  a  proof 
drawn  from  an  inspired  book  is  perfectly  conclusive.  And  prophecies 
delivered  in  an  inspired  book  are,  when  fulfilled,  such  as  may  be  justly 
deemed  sure,  and  demonstrative  proof;  and  which  Peter  (2  Peter  1:19) 
prefers  as  an  argument  for  the  truth  of  Cliristianitij,  to  that  miraculous 
attestation  (whereof  he,  and  two  other  Apostles  are  said  to  have  been 
■witnesses,)  given  by  God  himself  to  the  mission  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  His 
argument  appears  to  be  as  follows.  "  Laying  this  foundation,  that  Prophecy 
proceeds  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  a  stronger  argument  than  a  miracle, 
which  depends  upon  eternal  evidence,  and  testimony."  And  this  opinion  of 
Peter's  is  corroborated  by  the  words  of  Jesus  himself,  who,  in  Mat.  xxiv  :  23, 
24,  Mai'k  xiii :  21,  22,  affirms,  that  miracles  wrought  in  confirmation  of  a 
pretender's  being  the  Messiah,  are  not  to  be  considered  as  proof  of  his  being 
so — "  though  they  show  great  signs  and  wonders,  believe  it  not,"  is  his 
command  to  his  disciples. 

Besides,  prophecies  fulfilled,  seem  the  most  proper  of  all  arguments  to 
evince  the  truth  of  a  new  revelation  which  is  designed  to  be  universally 
promulgated  to  men.  For  a  man  who  has  the  Old  Testament  put  into  his 
hands,  which  contain  prophecies,  and  the  New  Testament  afterward,  which 
is  said  to  contain  their  completions,  and  is  once  satisfied,  as  he  may  be  with, 
the  greatest  ease,  that  the  Old  Testament  existed  before  the  New,  may  have 
a  complete,  internal,  divine,  demonstration  of  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
without  long,  and  laborious  enquiries.  Whereas,  arguments  of  another 
nature,  such,  for  instance,  as  relate  to  the  authority  and  genuineness  of  the 
books,  and  the  persons,  and  characters  of  authors,  and  witnesses,  require 
more  application,  and  understanding,  than  falls  to  the  share  of  the  bulk  of 
mankind ;  or  else  are  very  precarious  in  themselves,  since  we  know  that  in 
the  first  centuries  there  were  numberless  forged  Gospels,  and  Apocryphal 
writings  imposed  upon  the  credulous  as  apostolic  and  authentic ;  and 
there  were  in  the  Apostles  times,  as  many,  and  as  great  heresies  and 
schisms  as  perhaps  have  been  since  in  any  age  of  the  Chiu'ch.  So  that, 
setting  aside  the  before  mentioned  internal  proofs  from  prophecy,  (which 
were  the  Apostle's  proofs  and  in  their  nature  sufficient  of  themselves)  we 
should  have  no  certain  proof  at  all  for  the  Eeligion  of  the  New  Testament. 

On  the  other  Hakd,  if  the  proofs  for  Christianity  from  the  Old 
Testament,  are  not  valid,  if  the  arguments  founded  on  that  Book  be  not 
conclusive,  and  the  Prophecies  cited  from  thence  be  not  fulfilled,  then  has 
Christianity  no  just  foundation ;  for  the  foundation  on  which  Jesus  and  his 
Apostles  built  it  is  then  invalid,  and  Jalse.  Nor  can  miracles,  said  to  have 
been  wrought  by  Jesus,  and  his  Apostles  in  behalf  of  Christianity,  avail  any 
thing  in  the  case.  For  miracles  can  never  render  a  foundation  valid,  which 
is  in  itself  invalid  ;  can  never  make  a  false  inference  true ;  can  never  make 
a  prophecy  fulfilled,  which  is  not  fulfilled ;  and  can  never  designate  a 
Messiah,  or  Jesus  for  the  Messiah,  if  both  are  not  marked  out  in  the  Old 
Testament ;  no  more  than  they  could  prove  the  earth  to  be  the  sun,  or  a 
mouse  a  lion. 

Besides,  miracles  said  to  have  been  wa-ought,  may  be  often  justly  deemed 
false  reports,  when  attributed  to  persons  who  claim  an  authority  from  the 
Old  Testament,  which  they  impertinently  alledge  to  support  their  pretentions. 
God  can  never  be  supposed  often  to  permit  miracles  to  be  done  for  the 


confirmation  of  a  false,  or  pretended. mission.  And  if  at  any  time  he  does 
permit  miracles  to  be  done  in  confirmation  of  a  pretended  mission,  we  have 
express  directions  from  the  Old  Testament  (acknowledged  by  Christians  to 
be  of  divine  authority)  Deut.  xiii.  1,  2,  not  to  regard  such  miracles  ;  but  to 
continue  firm  to  the  antecedent  revelation  given  by  Himself,  and  contained 
in  the  Old  Testament,  notwithstanding  any  "  signs  or  wonders ;"  which^ 
under  the  circumstance  of  attesting  something  contrary  to  an  antecedant 
revelation,  we  are  forewai'ned  of  as  being  no  test  of  truth.  No  new 
revelation,  however  supported  by  miracles,  ought  ever  to  be  received  as 
coming  from  God,  unless  it  confii-ms,  or  at  least  does  not  contradict,  the 
preceding  standing  revelation,  acknowledged  to  be  from  God. 

Accordingly,  we  find  from  the  New  Testament,  that  all  the  recorded 
miracles  of  Jesus  could  not  make  the  Jews  believe  him  to  be  the  Messiah 
when  they  thought  that  he  did  not  answer  the  description  of  that  character 
given  by  the  Prophets ;  on  the  contrary,  they  procured  him  to  be  crucified 
for  pretending  to  be  what  to  them  he  appeared  plainly  not  to  be. 

Nor  had  his  miracles  alone  any  eff"ect  on  his  own  brethren,  and  kindred, 
who  seem  (Mark  vi.  4 ;  Jo.  vii.  5,)  to  have  been  more  incredulous  in  him 
than  other  Jews.  Nor  had  they  the  eff'ect,  they  are  supposed  to  have  been 
fitted  to  produce,  among  his  immediate  followers,  and  Disciples ;  some  of 
whom  did  not  believe  in  him,  but  deserted  him,  and  particularly  had  no  faith 
in  him  when  he  spake  of  his  suff'erings ;  and  thought  that  he  could  not  be 
their  Messiah  when  they  saw  him  suffer,  nowithstanding  his  miracles,  and 
his  declaration  to  them  that  he  was  the  Messiah.  And  so  rooted  were  the 
Jews  in  the  notion  of  the  Messiah's  being  a  temporal  Prince,  a  conquering 
Pacificator,  and  Deliverer,  even  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  the  progress  of 
Christianity  grounded  on  the  belief  of  his  being  the  Messiah,  that  they  have 
in  all  times  of  distress,  particularly  in  the  apostolic  a;ra,  in  great  numbers 
followed  impostors  giving  themselves  out  as  the  Messiah,  with  force,  and 
arms,  as  the  way  to  restore  the  kingdom  of  Isi-ael.  So  that  the  Jews,  who  it 
seems  mistook  in  this  most  important  matter,  and  after  the  most  egregious 
manner,  the  meaning  of  their  own  Books,  might,  till  they  were  set  right  in 
their  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  Avere  convinced  from  tltence 
that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  might  I  say,  as  justly  reject  Jesus  asserting  his 
mission,  and  Doctrines  with  miracles,  as  they  might  reject  any  other  person, 
who  in  virtue  of  miracles  would  lead  them  into  Idolatry,  or  any  other  breach 
of  their  law. 

In  fine,  the  miracles  said  to  have  been  wrought  by  Jesus,  ai'e,  according 
to  the  Old  Testament,  the  gospel  scheme,  and  the  words  of  Jesus  himself,  no 
absolute  proof  of  his  being  the  Messiah,  or  of  the  truth  of  Christianity ;  and 
Jesus  laid  no  great  stress  upon  them  as  proving  doctrines,  for  he  foi-ewarned 
his  disciples,  that  "  signs  and  wonders"  would  be  performed,  so  great  and 
stupendous,  as  to  deceive,  if  possible,  the  very  elect,  and  bids  them  not  to  give 
any  heed  to  them* 

*  There  are  a  great  many  persons  who  conceive  that  Christianity  is  sufficiently 
proved  to  be  true,  if  the  miracles  of  Jesus  are  true ;  even  without  any  regard  to  the 
'prophecies,  so  often  appealed  to  by  him.  But  supposing  the  miracles  to  be  true  ;  yet 
no  miracles  can  prove  that  which  k false  in  itself  to  be  true.  If  therefore  Jesus  be  not 
foretold  as  the  Messiah  in  the  Old  Testament,  no  miracles  can  prove  Jesus  to  be  the 
Messiah  foretold.  Nay,  it  would  be  a  stronger  argument  to  prove  Jesus  to  be  a  false 
pretender,  that  he  appealed  to  prophecies  as  relating  to  him,  when  in  fact  they  had  no 
relation  whatever  to  him ;  and  by  that  means  imposed  upon  the  ignorant  people  ;  that 
it  would  be,  that  he  came  from  God,  merely  because  he  worked  miracles :  for  "  False 
Christs  and  false  prophets  may  arise,  and  niaij  show  such  great  sig^s  ako  wonders 
as  to  deceive,  if  it  were  possible,  the  very  elect."    Matt.  xxiv.  24.    Yet  no  Christian 


6 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE    rnARACTERISTICS    OF    THE    MESSIAH,    AS    GIVEN    BV    THE    HEBREW    PROrHETS. 

Having  shewn  from  the  New  Testament,  and  proved  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  that  the  whole  credit  and  authority  of  the  Christian  rehgion,  rests 
and  depends  upon  Jesus'  being  tlio  Messiah  of  the  Jews  ;  and,  having  stated 
the  principles  which  ought  to  govern  the  decision  of  this  question,  and 
established  the  fact,  that  the  pretensions  of  any  claiming  to  be  considered  as 

would  allow  it  to  be  argued  from  thence,  that  those  false  Christs  were  true  ones  :  nor 
would  any  one  conclude,  that  a  man  came  from  God,  (notwithstanding  any  miracle  he 
might  do)  if  he  appealed  to  Scripture  for  that  iv/iich  is  no  tvhere  in  it.  In  fine,  if 
miracles  would  prove  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  so  also  they  would  prove  the 
Messiahship  of  the  false  Chi-ists,  and  false  prophets  spoken  of  above.  Nay  more,  they 
would  demonstrate  the  Divine  mission  of  Antichrist  himself ;  who,  according  to  th& 
epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  (2  Thes.  ch.  ii.  8,  9,  10)  and  the  Revelations,  ch.  xiii.  13, 
14,  was  to  perform  "great  signs  and  wonders,"  equal  to  any  wrought  by  Jesus,  for 
the  same  Greek  words  are  used  to  express  the  wonderful  works  or  "great  signs  and 
wonders"  of  Antichrist,  which  are  elsewhere  used  to  express  the  miracles,  or  "  great 
signs  and  wonders"  of  Jesus  himself. 

It  is  a  striking  circumstance,  that  the  earliest  apologists  for  Christianity  laid  httle 
stress  upon  the  miracles  of  its  founder. 

Justin  Martyr,  in  his  Apology,  is  very  shy  of  appealing  to  the  miracles  of  Jesus  in 
confirmation  of  his  pretentions  ;  he  lays  no  stress  upon  them,  but  relies  entirely  upon 
the  prophecies  he  quotes  as  in  his  favor.  Jerome,  ui  his  comment  on  the  eighty-first 
Psalm,  assures  us,  "  that  the  performance  of  miracles  was  no  extraordinary  thing : 
and  that  it  was  no  more  than  what  AppoUonius,  and  Apidius,  and  innumerable 
impostors  had  done  before.'' 

Lactantius  saw  so  little  force  in  the  miracles  of  Christ,  exclusive  of  the  prophecies, 
that  he  does  not  hesitate  to  affirm  their  utter  inability  to  support  the  Christian  religion 
fc_y  themselves.     [Lactan.  Div.  Inst.  L.  v.  c.  3.] 

Celsus,  observing  upon  the  words  of  Jesus,  that  "  false  prophets  and  false  Christs 
shall  arise,  and  show  great  signs  and  wonders,"  sneeringly  observes,  "  A  fine  thing 
truly !  that  miracles  done  by  him  should  prove  him  to  be  a  God,  and  when  done  by 
others  should  demonstrate  them  to  be  false  prophets  and  impostors." 

Tertullian,  on  the  words  of  Jesus,  here  referred  to  by  Celsus,  says  as  follows : 
« Christ,  toretelling  that  many  imposters  should  come  and  perform  many  wonders, 
shews,  that  our  faith  camiot  luithov.t  great  temeritu  be  founded  on  miracles,  since  they 
were  so  early  wrought  by  false  Christians!  themselves."   [Tertul.  in  Marc.  L.  ii.  c.  3.J 

Indeed,  miracles  in  the  two  first  centuries  were  allowed  very  little  weight  in 
proving  doctrines.  Since  the  Christians  did  not  deny,  that  the  heathens  performed 
miracles  in  behalf  of  their  gods,  and  that  the  heretics  performed  them  as  well  as  the 
orthodox.  This  accounts  for  the  perfect  indifference  of  the  heathens  to  the  miracles 
said  to  have  been  performed  by  the  founders  of  Christianity.  Hierocles  speaks  with 
great  contempt  of  what  he  calls  "  the  little  tricks  of  Jesus."  And  Origen,  in  his 
reply  to  Celsus,  waves  the  consideration  of  the  Christian  mu-acles :  "  for  (says  he)  the 
very  mention  of  these  things  sets  you  heathens  upon  the  broad  grin."  Indeed,  that 
they  laughed  very  heartily  at  what  in  the  eighteenth  century  is  read  with  a  grave 
face,  is  evident  from  the  "few  fragments  of  their  Avorks  written  against  Christianity 
which  has  escaped  the  burninr/  zeal  of  the  fathers,  and  the  Christian  emperors ;  who 
piously  sought  for,  and  burned  up,  these  mischievous  volumes  to  prevent  their  doing 
mischief  to  posterity.  This  conduct  of  theirs  is  very  suspicious.  Why  burn  writings 
they  could  so  triuimphantly  refute,  if  they  were  refutable  ?  They  should  have 
remembered  the  just  reflection  of  Arnobius,  their  own  apologist,  against  the  heathens, 
who  were  for  abolishing  at  once  such  writings  as  promoted  Christianity. — "  Inter 
cipere  scripta  et  publicatam  velle  submergere  lectionem,  non  est  Deos  defendere,  sed 
veritatis  testificoAionem  timere."    [Arnob.  contra  Gentes.  Liber  iii.] — E. 

1  Christs?— D. 


this  Messiah,  must  be  tested  solely  by  the  coincidence  of  the  character,  and 
circumstances  of  the  pretender  with  the  descriptions  given  by  the  prophets 
as  the  means  by  which  he  may  be  known  to  be  so — it  is  proper,  in  order  that 
we  may  be  enabled  to  form  a  correct  opinion,  to  lay  before  the  reader  those 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament  wliich  contain  the  promise  of  the  appearing, 
and  expi-ess  the  characteristics  of  this  "hope  of  Israel,"  this  beneficent 
savioiu',  and  august  monarch,  in  whose  time  a  suftering  world,  was,  according 
to  the  Hebrew  prophets,  to  become  the  abode  of  hapjjy  beings. 

Leaving  out  for  the  present  the  consideration  of  the  Shiloh  mentioned  in 
Gen.  xlis.,  the  fii'St  prophecy  we  meet  with,  supposed  to  relate  to  this  great 
character,  is  contained  in  Num.  xxiv.  17, 19,  "There  shall  come  a  star  out  of 
Jacob,  and  a  sceptre  shall  rise  out  of  Israel,  shall  smite  the  corners  of  Moab, 
and  destroy  the  children  of  Seth."  Geddes  interprets  the  latter  clause — 
"  shall  destroy  the  sons  of  esdition ;"  but  it  probably  means,  according  to  the 
common  interpretation,  that  this  monarch  was  to  govern  the  whole  race  of 
men,  i.  e.  the  children  of  Seth;  for  Noah,  according  to  the  Old  Testament, 
was  descended  from  him  ;  and  of  the  posterity  of  Noah,  was  the  whole  earth 
overspread.  And  in  verse  19,  it  is  added  "  out  of  Jacob  shall  come  he  that 
shall  have  dominion."* 

God  says  to  David,  2  Sam.  vii.  12,  "  And  when  thy  days  shall  be  fulfilled, 
and  thou  shall  sleep  with  thy  fathers,  I  will  set  up  thy  seed  after  thee,  which 
shall  proceed  out  of  thy  bowels  ;  and  I  will  establish  his  kingdom.  He  shall 
build  a  house  for  my  name,  and  I  will  establish  the  throne  of  his  kingdom  for 
ever.  I  will  be  his  Father,  and  he  shall  be  my  Son — if  he  commit  iniquity, 
I  will  chasten  him  with  the  rod  of  men,  and  with  the  stripes  of  the  children 
of  men.  But  my  mercy  shall  not  depart  from  him,  as  I  took  it  from  Saul, 
whom  I  put  away  before  thee.  And  thy  house,  and  thy  kingdom  shall  be 
established  before  me,  and  thy  throne  shall  be  established  for  ever."  Mention 
is  made  of  this  promise  in  several  of  the  Psalms,  but  it  certainly  suggests  no 
idea  of  such  a  person  as  Jesus  of  Nazai-eth,  but  only  that  of  a  temporal  prince 
of  the  posterity  of  David.  It  implies,  that  his  family  would  never  entirely 
fail,  for  though  it  might  be  severely  punished,  it  would  recover  its  lustre 
again.  And  connecting  this  promise  with  that  of  the  glory  of  the  nation  in 
general,  foretold  in  the  books  of  Moses,  it  might  be  inferred  by  the  Hebrews, 
who  behoved  them  to  be  of  Divine  authority,  that  after  long  and  great 
calamities  (the  consequences  of  their  sins,)  the  people  of  Israel  would  be 
restored  to  their  country,  and  attain  the  most  distinguished  felicity  under  a 
prince  of  the  family  of  David.  This  is  the  subject  of  numberless  prophecies 
throughout  the  Old  Testament. 

Passing  over  all  those  prophecies  in  which  the  national  glory  is  spoken  of 
luithout  any  mention  of  a  i^rince  or  head ;  I  shall  recite,  and  remark  upon  the 
most  eminent  of  those  in  which  mention  is  made  of  any  particular  person, 
under  whom,  or  by  means  of  whom,  the  Israelitish  nation,  it  is  said,  would 
enjoy  the  transcendent  prosperity  elsewhere  foretold. 

The  second  Psalm  is  no  doubt  well  known  to  my  readers,  and  supposing 
it  to  refer  to  the  Messiah,  it  is  evident,  that  it  describes  him  enthroned  upon 

*  Before  going  into  the  consideration  of  the  foUo'W'ing  prophecies,  the  author 
would  wai*n  the  reader  to  bear  in  mind,  that  whether  these  prophecies  ever  will  be 
fulfilled,  is  a  question  of  no  vnport  in  the  ivorld  to  the  question  under  consideration, 
which  is — whether  they  ho.ve  been  fulfilled  eia^hteeu  hundred  years  ago,  in  the  person 
of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  asserted  by  Chi'istians  to  be  the  person  foretold  in  these 
prophecies,  and  to  have  fulfilled  their  predictions.  This  question  can  be  easily  decided, 
and  only,  we  think,  by  appealing  to  past  history,  and  to  the  scenes  passing  around  us, 
and  comparing  them  with  these  predictions. — E. 


8 

mount  Zion,  the  favorite  of  God,  and  the  resistless  conqueror  of  his  enemies. 

The  next  prophecy  of  this  distinguished  individual  is  Recorded  in  Isaiah 
ix.  6 — "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given,  and  the  government 
shall  be  upon  his  shoulder :  and  the  Wonderful,  the  Counsellor,  the  mighty 
God,  the  everlasting  Father  shall  call  his  name,*  the  Prince  of  Peace."  [For 
thus  it  is  pointed  to  be  read  in  the  original  Hebrew,  and  this  is  the  meaning 
of  the  passage,  and  not  as  in  the  absurd  translation  of  this  verse  in  the 
English  version.]  "  Of  the  increase  of  his  government  there  shall  be  no  end, 
upon  the  throne  of  David,  and  his  kingdom,  to  order  it,  and  to  establish  it 
■with  judgment,  and  with  justice  from  lienceforth  and  for  ever :  the  zeal  of  the 
Lord  of  Hosts  will  do  this."  Here  again  we  have  a  mighty  monarch,  sitting 
upon  the  throne  of  David,  upon  earth ;  and  not  a  spiritual  king  placed  in 
heaven,  upon  the  throne  of  '-'the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father." 

The  next  passage  which  comes  under  notice,  is  in  the  eleventh  chapter 
of  Isaiah,  in  which  a  person  is  mentioned,  under  whom  Israel,  and  the 
whole  earth  Avas  to  enjoy  great  prosperity  and  felicity.  He  is  described  as 
an  upright  prince,  endued  with  the  spirit  of  God,  under  whose  reign  there 
would  be  universal  peace,  which  was  to  take  place  after  the  return  of  tho 
Israelites  from  their  dispersed  state,  when  the  whole  nation  would  be  united 
and  happy. 

"  There  shall  spring  forth  a  rod  from  the  trunk  of  Jesse,  and  a  scion 
from  his  roots  shall  become  fruitful.  And  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  rest 
upon  him ;  the  spirit  of  wisdom,  and  understanding ;  the  spirit  of  counsel, 
and  strength ;  the  spirit  of  knowledge,  and  the  fear  of  the  Lord.  And  he 
shall  be  quick  of  discernment  in  the  tear  of  the  Lord ;  so  that  not  according 
'to  the  sight  of  his  eyes  shall  he  judge,  nor  according  to  the  hearing  of  the 
ears  shall  he  reprove.  With  righteousness  shall  he  judge  the  poor,  and  with 
equity  shall  he  work  conviction'!'  on  the  meek  of  the  earth.  And  he  shall 
smite  the  earth  with  the  blast  of  his  mouth  ;  and  with  the  breath  of  his  lips 
shall  he  slay  the  wicked  one.  And  righteousness  shall  be  the  girdle  of  his 
lions,  and  faithfulness  the  cincture  of  his  reins.  Then  shall  the  wolf  take  up 
his  abode  with  the  lamb  ;  and  the  leopard  shall  lie  down  with  the  kid  ;  and 
the  calf,  and  the  young  lion,  and  the  fatling  shall  come  together,  and  a  little 
child  shall  lead  them.  And  the  heifer,  and  the  she  bear  shall  feed  together, 
and  the  lion  shall  eat  straw  like  the  ox.  And  the  suckling  shall  play  upon 
the  hole  of  the  asp  ;  and  upon  the  den  of  the  basilisk  shall  the  new  weaned 
child  lay  his  hand.  They  shall  not  hurt,  nor  destroy  in  my  holy  mountain, 
for  the  earth  shall  be  full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  as  the  waters  cover 
the  sea.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  the  root  of  Jesse  which 
standeth  for  an  ensign  to  the  people,  unto  him  shall  the  nations  X'epau*,  and 
his  resting  place  shall  be  glorious." 

As  the  scion  here  spoken  of  is  said  to  s])ring  from  the  root  of  Jesse,  it 
looks  as  if  it  were  intended  to  intimate,  that  the  tree  jYse//"  would  be  cut  downy 
or  that  the  power  of  David's  Family  would  he  for  some  time  extinct ;  but  that 
it  would  revive  in  "the  latter  days." 

The  same  Prince  is  again  mentioned,  chap  xxxiii.  1,  3,  where  the  people 
are  described  to  be  both  virtuous,  and  flourishing,  and  to  continue  to  be  so. 
(v.  15—17.) 

"  Behold  a  king  shall  reign  in  righteousness,  and  princes  shall  rule  with 
equity.  And  the  man  shall  be  a  covert  from  the  storm,  as  a  refuge  from  the 
flood,  as  canals  of  waters  in  a  dry  place,  as  the  shadow  of  a  great  rock  in  a 

*  The  word  in  the  original  being  Vayikra  in  the  Kal  or  Active  form  of  the 
verb,  and  not  Vayikare  the  Niphal  or  Passive  form. — D. 
t  n-Dim  reprove  or  argue. — D. 


land  of  fainting  with  heat.  And  him  the  eyes  of  those  that  see  shall  regard, 
and  the  ears  of  them  that  hear  shall  harken,  *  *  .  *  *  till  the  spirit  from 
on  high  be  poured  out  upon  us,  and  the  wilderness  become  a  fruitful  field, 
and  the  fruitful  field  be  esteemed  a  forest.  And  judgment  shall  dwell  in  the 
wilderness,  and  in  the  fruitful  field  shall  reside  righteousness.  And  the 
work  of  righteousness  shall  be  peace,  and  the  effect  of  righteousness  perpetual 
quiet,  and  security.  And  my  people  shall  dwell  in  a  peaceful  mansion,  and  in 
habitations  secure,  and  in  resting  places  undisturbed." 

The  same  Prophet,  chap.  Ixii  1,  speaks  of  a  person  under  the  title  of 
"  God's  Servant,"  of  a  meek  disposition,  raised  up  by  God  to  enlighten  the 
world,  even  the  Gentile  part  of  it ;  to  bring  prisoners  out  of  their 
confinement,  and  to  open  their  eyes  ;  alluding,  probably,  to  the  custom  too 
common  in  the  East ;  of  sealing  up  the  eyes,  by  sewing  or  fastening  together 
the  eyelids  of  persons,  and  then  imprisoning  them  for  life.  It  is  ■doubted, 
however,  Avhether  the  Prophet  meant,  or  had  in  view,  in  this  passage,  the 
Messiah,  or  his  own  nation. 

"  Behold  my  servant  whom  I  will  uphold,  mine  elect  in  whom  my  soul 
delighteth ;  I  will  make  my  spirit  rest  upon  him,  and  he  shall  publish 
judgment  to  the  nations.  He  shall  not  cry  aloud,  nor  raise  a  clamour,  nor 
cause  his  voice  to  be  heard  in  the  public  places.  The  bruised  reed  shall  he 
not  break,  and  the  dimly  burning  flax  he  shall  not  quench,  he  shall  publish 
judgment  so  as  to  establish  it  perfectly.  His  force  shall  not  be  abated,  nor 
broken,  until  he  has  firmly  seated  judgment  in  the  earth,  and  the  distant 
nations  shall  earnestly  wait  for  his  Law." 

"  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  even  the  Eternal,  who  created  the  heavens,  and 
stretched  them  out ;  who  spread  abroad  the  earth,  and  the  produce  thereof, 
who  giveth  breath  to  the  people  upon  it,  and  spirit  to  them  that  tread 
thereon.  I  the  Lord  have  called  thee  for  a  righteous  purpose,*  and  I  will 
take  hold  of  thy  hand,  and  I  will  preserve  thee  ;  and  I  will  give  thee  for  a 
covenant  to  the  people,  for  a  light  to  the  nations  ;  To  open  the  eyes  of  the 
blind,  to  bring  the  captive  out  of  confinement,  and  from  the  dungeon  those 
that  dwell  in  darkness.  I  am  the  Eternal,  that  is  my  name,  and  my  glory 
will  I  not,  give  to  another,  nor  my  praise  to  the  graven  images.  The  former 
predictions,  lo !  they  are  to  come  to  pass,  and  new  events  I  now  declare ; 
before  they  spring  forth,  behold  I  make  them  known  unto  you."  See  also 
chap.  xlix.  1, 12,  and  chap ^  liv.  3,  5. 

In  the  3d  chapter  of  Hosea,  verses  4  and  5,  it  is  said  by  the  Prophet, 
that  "  the  sons  of  Israel  shall  abide  many  days  Avithout  a  king,  and  without 
a  prince,  and  without  sacrifice,  and  without  a  statue,  and  without  an  ephod, 
and  without  Teraphim.  Afterward  shall  the  sons  of  Israel  return,  and  shall 
seek  the  Lord  their  God,  and  David  their  King,  and  shall  fear  the  Lord,  and 
his  goodness  in  the  latter  days." 

Micah  chap.  v.  speaks  of  tho  Messiah  thus,  "  And  thou  Bethlehem 
Ephratah,  art  thou,  too  little  to  be  among  the  leaders  of  Judah  ?  Out  of  thee 
shall  come  forth  unto  me,  him  who  is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel  ;>and  his  goings 
forth  have  been  from  old,  from  the  days  of  hidden  ages.  Therefore  will  He 
(God)  deliver  them  up,  until  the  time  -when  she  that  bringeth  forth,  hath 
brought  forth,  and  until  the  residue  of  his  brethren  shall  return  together 
with  the  sons,  of  Israel.  And  he  shall  stand  and  feed  his  flock,  in  the 
strength  of  the  Lord,  in  the  majesty  of  the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God,  and 
they  shall  abide,  for  now  shall  he  be  great  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  he 
shall  be  Peace." 

*  Or,  in  righteousness. — D. 
B 


10 

Jeremiah  also  speaks  of  the  restoration  of  the  Israelites  uader  a  Princa 
of  the  family  of  David,  chap,  xxiii.  5,  8. 

"  Behold  the  days  are  coming,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  raise  up  unto 
David  a  righteous  branch,  and  a  king  shall  reign,  and  act  wisely,  and  shall 
execute  justice,  and  judgment  in  the  earth.  In  his.  days  Judah  shall  be 
saved,  and  Israel  shall  dwell  in  security,  and  this  is  the  name  by  which  the 
Eternal  shall  call  him,  our  righteousness."*  [Heb.]  The  same  is  mentioned 
in  chap.  xxx.  8,  9.  "And  it  shall  be  in  that  day,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  I 
will  break  his  yoke  from  off  his  neck,  and  his  bands  will  I  burst  asunder, 
and  strangers,  shall  no  more  exact  service  of  him.  But  they  shall  sen'e  the 
Lord  their  God,  and  David  their  King,  whom  I  will  raise  up  for  (or  to)  them. 
*  *  *  The  voice  .of  joy,  and  the  voice  of  mirth,  the  voice  of  the 
bridegroom,  and  the  voice  of  the  bride,  the  voice  of  them  that  say.  Praise  ye 
the  Lord  of  Hosts,  for  the  Lord  is  gracious,  for  his  mercy  enduroth  for  ever,  of 
them  that  bring  praise  to  the  house, of  the  Lord.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of 
Hosts,  }X't  again  shall  there  l)e  in  this  place  that  is  desolate  ('Jerusalem  and 
Palestine.)  without  man  and  beast,  and  in  all  the  cities  thereof,  an  habitation 
of  shephei'ds  folding  sheep,  in  the  cities  of  the  hill  country,  and  in  the  cities 
of  the  plain,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  south,  and  in  the  land  of  Benjamin,  awl  in 
the  environs  of  Jerusalem.  *  *  *  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord, 
that  I  will  pei'form  the  good  thing  which  I  have  spoken  concerning  the  house 
of  Israel,  and  concerning  the  house  of  Judah.  In  those  dai/s,  and  at  that  time, 
[he  that  readeth,  let  him  observe]  I  will  cause  to  grow  up  of  the  line  of  David  a 
branch  of  righteousness,  and  he  shall  execute  judgment  and  justice  in  the 
earth.  In  those  days  Judah  shall  be  saved,  and  Jerusalem  shall  dwell  securely, 
and  this  is  he  whom  the  Lord  shall  call — 'our  righteousness.'  [Heb.] 
Surely,  thus  saith  the  Lord,  there  shall  not  be  a  failure  in  the  line  of  David, 
one  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  the  house  of  Israel,  neither  shall  there  be 
a  failure  in  the  line  of  the  Priests,  the  Levites,  of  one  to  offer  before  mo 
burnt  offerings,  and  to  perform  sacrifice  continually."  See  ch.  xxxiiii.  14. 
In  this  place,  the  perpetuit;/  of  the  tribe  of  Levi;  as  well  as  that  of  the  house  of 
David,  is  foretold.     See  also  Jer.  ch.  xxx.  0. 

Cotemporary  with  Jeremiah  was  Ezekiel.  He  likewise  describes  this 
happy  state  of  the  Israelites  under  a  king  of  the  name  of  David,  chap, 
xxxiv.  22. 

"  Therefore  will  I  save  my  flock,  and  they  shall  no  more  be  a  prey  :  and 
I  will  judge  between  cattle,  and  cattle.  Andl  will  set  up  one  Shepherd  over 
them,  and  he  shall  feed  them',  even,  my  servant  David  :  he  shall  feed  them, 
and  he  shall  be  their  shepherd,  and  I  the  Lord  will  lie  their  God,  and  my 
servant  David  a  Prince  among  them.  I  the  Lord  have  spoken  it.  And  I  wifl 
make  with  them  a  covenant  of  peace,  and  will  cause  the,  evil  beasts  to  cease 
out  of  the  land :  and  they  shall  dwell  safely  in  the  wilderness,  and  sleep  in 
the  woods.  And  I  will  make  them,  and  the  places  round  about  my  hill,  a 
blessing,  and  I  will  cause  the  shower  to  come  down  in  the  season :  there  shall 
be  showers  of  blessing.  And  the  tree  of  the  field  shall  yield  her  fruit ;  and 
the  earth  shall  yield  her  increase;  and  they  shall  be  safe  in  their  land;  and 
shall  know  that  lam  the  Lord,  &c." 

In  another  passage  this  prophet  says,  that  the  two  nations,  Israel  and 
Judah,  shall  have  one  king,  and  that  t"liis  king  shall  be  named  David,  who 
shall  reign  for  ever,  chap,  xxxvii.  21—28.  "Say  unto  them,  thus  saith  the 
Lord  God,  behold  I  will  take  the  chrldren  of  Israel  from  among  the  heathen, 
whither  they  be  gone,  and  will  gather  them  on  every  side,  and  bring  them 

*  Mr.  English  very  properly  takes  notice  of  the  disjunctive  accent  (Pasek) 
occurring  here  in  the  text. — D. 


11 

into  their  own  land.  And  I  will  make  them  one  nation  in  the  land,  upon  the 
mountains  of  I^"ael,  and  one  king  shall  be  king  to  them  all,  and  they  shall 
be  no  more  two  nations,  neither  shall  they  be  divided  into  two  kingdoms  any 
more  at  all.  Neither  shall  they  defile  themselves  any  more  Avith  their  idols, 
nor  with  their  detestable  things,  nor  with  any  of  their  transgressions ;  but  I 
will  save  them  out  of  all  their  dwelling  places  wherein  they  have  sini\ed,  and 
will  cleanse  them,  so  shall  they  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be  their  God.  And 
David  my  servant  shall  be  king  over  them,  and  there  shall  be  one  shepherd. 
They  shall  also  loalk  in  my  judgments,  and  observe  my  statutes  and  do  them. 
And  they  shall  dwell  in  the  land  that  I  have  given  unto  Jacob  my  servant, 
wherein  your  fathers  have  dwelt,  and  they  shall  dwell  therein,  even  they,  and 
their  childi'en,  and  their  children's  children  for  ever,  and  my  servant  David 
shall  be  their  prince  forever.  Moreover  I  will  make  a  covenant  of  peace  with 
them :  it  shall  be  an  everlasting  covenant  Avith  them,  and  I  will  place  them, 
and  multiply  them,  and  will  set  my  sanctuary  in  the  midst  of  them,  for 
evei-more.  My  tabernacle  also  shall  be  with  them,  and  I  will  be  their  God, 
and  they  shall  be  my  people.  And  the  heathen  shall  know,  that  I  the  Lord 
do  sanctify  Israel,  when  my  sanctuary  shall  be  in  the  midst  of  them ybr 
evermore." 

The  natural  construction  of  this  seems  to  be  this,  "  that  a  descendant  of 
David,  called  hy  that  name,  should  reign  over  the  Israelites  for  ever." 

In  the  very  circumstantial  description  which  Ezekiel  gives  of  the  state  of 
the  Israelites  in  their  own  country,  yet  expected  by  the  Jews,  he  speaks  of 
the  prince,  and  the  portion  assigned  him,  chap.  xlv.  78.  And  in  his 
description  of  the  temple  service,  he  moreover  speaks  of  the  gate,  by  which 
the  prince  is  to  enter  into  it.     See  chap.  xlvi.  1,  -2. 

The  next,  and  last,  passage  I  shall  quote,  is  from  the  book  of  Daniel, 
who,  in  the  first  year  of  Belshazzar  king  of  Babylon,  had  a  vision  of  four 
beasts,  representing  the  four  great  Empires.  At  the  close  of  his  account  of 
which,  he  speaks  of  "  one  like  the  son  of  man'"'  being  brought  into  the 
presence  of  God,  and  receiving  from  the  Eternal  an  everlasting  kingdom 
(chap.  vii.  13) — "  I  saw  in  the  night  visions,  and  behold  one  like  the  son  of 
man  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  come  to  the  ancient  of  days ;  and 
th^y  brought  him  near  before  him.  And  there  waff  given  him  dominion, 
and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people,  nations,  and  languages,  should  serve 
him  :  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion,  which  shall  not  pass  away,  and 
his  kingdom  that  Avhich  shall  not  be  destroyed." 

I  have  now  gone  through  the  prophecies  which  are  allowed  both  hy  Jews 
and  Christians  to  relate  to  one  person  whom  they  call  the  Messiah.  It  must 
be  evident  from  all  these  passages,  that  the  characteristics  of  this,  to  both 
parties,  highly  interesting  personage,  as  described  by  the  Hebrew  prophets, 
are  these : — 

1.  That  ho  was  to  be  a  just,  beneficent,  ivise,  and  mighty  monarch,  raised 
up  and  upheld,  and  established  by  God,  to  be  the  means  of  promoting 
universal  peace,  and  happiness.  That  Israel  should  be  gathered  to  him,  and 
established  in  their  own  laud  ;  which  was  to  be  the  seat  of  dominion,  and  the 
centre  of  union,  and  of  worship  to  all  the  people,  and  nations  of  the  earth  ; 
who  were  to  live  under  the  government,  and  receive,  and  obey  the  law  of  this 
beneficent  prince  ;  and  enjoy  unspeakable  felicities  on  the  earth,  then  changed 
to  a  universal  paradise.  And  lor  all  this  happiness,  they  were  to  worship, 
and  glorify  the  true  God  only,  and  glorify-  the  Eternal,  and  give  thanks  to  Him, 
"  because  He  is  good,  and  his  mercy  endureth  forever." 

2.  That  this  prince  was  to  be  of  the  line  of  David,  and  as  it  should  seem, 
called  by  that  naine,  and  was  to  reign  on  his  throne  in  Jerusalem. 

3.  That  according  to  Micah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel,  (see  the  quotations) 


12 

his  mant/estation,  and  the  restoration  of  Israel  were  to  be  contemporaneous. 
See  Hosca,  chap.  iii.  4,  5.  And  from  Jeremiah  xxxiii.  15,  and  from  Micahv^ 
2,  it  should  seem  also,,  that  he  %vas  not  to  be  born,  till  tluD  time  of  that 
restoration  should  be  nearly  arrived. 

The  prophecies  concerning  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews  being  now  laid  before 
the  reader,  we  have  only  to  apply  these  descriptions  to  know  whether  an 
individual  be  their  Messiah,  or  not.  For,  (according  to  the  principles  laid 
down,  and  established  in  the  preceding  chapter)  where  the  foregoing 
characteristics  given  by  the  prophets  do  centre  and  agree,  that  person  is  the 
Messiah  foretold ;  but  where  they  are  not  found  in  any  one  claiming  that 
character,  miracles  are  nothing  to  the  purpose,  and  nothing  he,  more  certain, 
than  that  he  has  no  right  to  be  considered  as  such  ;  and  could  he  with  a  word 
turn  the  sun  black  in  the  face,  in  proof  of  'his  being  the  Messiah,  he  is, 
nevertheless,  not  to  be  regarded ;  for,  whether  such  a  person  has  yet 
appeared,  can  certainly  only  be  known  by  considering,  whether  the  world  has 
ever  yet  seen  such  a  person  as  this  Messiah  of  the  Hebrew  prophets. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    CHAKACTER  OF   JESUS   TESTED   BY    THOSE   CHAKACTERISTIC   MARKS   OF    THE   MESSIAH 
GIVEN   BY    THE    PROPHETS    OF    THE    OLD    TESTA.MENT. 

Had  Jesus  of  Nazareth  come  into  the  world  merely  as  a  person  sent  with 
a  revelation  from  God,  he  would  have  had  a  right  to  be  attended  to,  and 
tried  upon  that  ground.  And  if  his  doctrines  and  precepts  were  consistent. 
Avith  reason,  consistent  with  one  another,  and  with  prior  revelations,  really 
such,  and  all  tending  to  the  honour  of  God,  and  the  good  of  men ;  his 
miracles,  with  these  circumstances,  ought  to  have  detex'mined  men  to  believe 
in  him. 

But  since  he  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah  of  the  J eyv?,,  foretold  hy  their 
propliets,  it  is  requisite,  that  that  claim  should  be  made  out ;  and  it  is  reasonable 
in  itself,  and  just  to  him,  and  necessary  to  all  those  who  will  not  take  their 
religion  upon  trust,  that  he  should  be  tried,  by  examining  whether  this  claim 
can  be  made  out,  or  not.  The  argument  from  prophecy  becomes  necessary 
to  establish  the  claim  of  the  Gospel :  and  as  truth  is  consistent  with  itself> 
so  this  claim  must  be  true,  or,  it  destroys  all  others. 

Besides,  what  notions  of  common  morality  must  he  have,  who  pretends 
to  come  from  God,  and  declares  (Jo.  v.  37.)  "  that  the  Scriptures  testify  of 
him,"  if,  in  fact,  the  Scriptures  do  not  testify  of  him  ?  What  honesty,  or 
sincerity  could  he  have,  who  could  "  begin  at  Moses,  and  all  the  prophets,  and 
expound  unto  his  disciples  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning 
himself,"  if  neither  Moses  nor  the  prophets  ever  spake  a  word  about  him  ? 
The  prophets,  therefore,  must  decide  this  question,  and  the  foundation  of 
Christianity  must  be  laid  upon  them;  or  else,  to  avoid  one  difficulty. 
Christians  will  be  forced  into  such  absurdities,  as  no  man  can  palliate, 
much  less  can  extricate  himself  out  of. 

Furthermore,  this  claim  must  be  made  out  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
Gentile,  as  well  as  the  Jew.  For  since  the  fundamental  article  of  Christianity 
is,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ ;  (Jo.  xx.  31)  that  is  to  say,  that  he  is  the  Messiah 
prophecied  of  in  tho  Old  Testament ;  whoever  comes  into  the  world  as  such, 
must  come  as  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  because  no  other  nation  did  expect, 
or  pretend  to,  the  promise  of  a  Messiah.  Moreover,  whoever  comes  as  this 
Messiah  of  the  Jews,  must  at  least  pretend  to  answer  the  character  of  their 
Messiah  plainly  delivered  in  the  writings  of  their  prophets.     And  tbe  Jews 


13 

I 

themselves  receiving  those  writings  as  divine,  were  not  bound  to,  neither 
could  they  consistently  with  their  duty,  receive,  any,  who  did  not  answer  in 
all  points  to  the  description  therein  given. 

Let  us  now  test  the  character  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  by  the  description 
of  the  Messiah  given  by  the  Hebrew  prophets.  If  his  character  corresponds 
in  all  respects  with  that  given  by  those  prophets,  he  is  undoubtedly  to  be 
acknowledged  'as  the  king  of  Israel  foretold ;  but  if  they  do  not  exactly 
correspond,  if  there  be  the  slightest  incongruity,  he  certainly  was  not  this 
Messiah.  For  it  is  evident,  that  some  of  the  chai'acteristic  marks  given  may 
belong  to  many  illustrious  individuals,  but  the  vjiole  can  belong  to,  and  be 
found  in,  onli/  one  person. 

The  first  characteristic  of  the  Messiah,  the  reader  will  recollect,  was, 
according  to  the  prophets,  that  he  was  to  be  "  the  Prince  of  Peace,"  in  whose 
times  righteousness  Avas  to  flourish,  and  mankind  be  made  happy.  That  he 
was  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David  judging  right ;  and  that  to  him,  and  their 
own  land,  was  Isi-ael  to  be  gathered,  and  all  nations  serve  and  obey  him ; 
and  worship  one  God,  even  Jehovah. 

But  of  Jesus  we  read,  that  he  asserted,  that  his  kingdom  was  "not  of  this 
world."  Instead  of  effecting  peace  among  the  nations,  he  said,  "  Think  not 
that  I  am  come  to  send  peace  on  earth,  I  have  come  to  send  a  sword,  I  have 
come  to  put  division  between  a  son,  and  his  father ;  the  mother,  and  the 
daughter ;  th6  daughter-in-law,  and  her  mother-in-law."  "  Think  ye,  (said 
he  to  his  disciples)  that  I  have  come  to  put  peace  on  earth,  I  tell  you  nay, 
but  rather  division."  Again,  "  I  have  come  to  put /re  on  the  earth.''  These 
are  not  the  chai'acteristics  of  the  Messiah  of  the  prophets  of  the  Old 
Testament.  For  of  him  Zechariah  (ch.  ix.)  says,  that  "  He  shall  speak  peace 
to  the  nations ;"  and  of  him  Isaiah  says,  "  Nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword 
against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more."  And  so  far  fi'om 
being  the  author  of  division,  sword,  and  fire ;  according  to  Malachi,  in 
the  times  of  the  Messiah,  "  the-heart  of  the  parents  was  to  be  converted  to 
the  children,  and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  their  parents." 

In  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  wars  were  to  cease,  righteousness  was  to 
flourish,  and  mankind  be  happy.  Whether  this  has  yet  taken  jilace,  the 
experience  of  almost  nineteen  centuries,  and  the  j^resent  state  of  the  world, 
can  enable  every  one  to  determine  for  himself. 

In  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  Israel  was  to  be  gathered,  and  planted  iu 
their  own  land,  in  honour,  and  prosperity.  But  not  many  years  after  the 
death  of  Jesus  of  Nazai'eth,  the  Jewish  nation  underwent  the  most  dreadful 
calamities  ;  and  to  this  day,  so  far  are  they  from  being  gathered,  they  are 
scattered  to  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe.  Instead  of  being  in  honour  and 
prosperity,  their  history,  since  his  time,  is  one  dreadful  record  of  unparalleled  • 
sufferings,  -sVritten  in  letters  of  blood  by  the  hands  of  murder,  rapine,  and 
cruelty. 

Again  ;  the  true  Messiah  was,  it  seems,  to  be  called  David,  and  was  to 
reign  at  Jerusalem,  on  the  throne  of  David ;  but  the  name  "  Jesus"  is  not  the 
same  as  "David,"  and  Christians  have  assigned  him  a  spiritual  kingdom, 
and  a  throne  in  heaven  !  But  was  the  thi-one  of  David  in  heaven  ?  No !  it 
■was  in  Jerusalem,  and  no  more  in  Heaven,  than  that  of  the  Cajsars. 

Lastly,  it  appears  fi'om  the  prophecies  of  Hosea,  Micah,  and  Jeremiah, 
Isaiah,  and  Ezekiel,  quoted  in  the  last  chapter,  that  the  manifestation  of  their 
Messiah  was  to  be  contemporaneous  with  the  restoration  of  Israel,  and  from 
the  quotations  adduced  from  the  three  first  mentioned  prophets,  it  should 
seem  that  his  birth  ivas  not  to  take  place  many  years  before  that  glorious  event. 
But  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  born  almost  two  thousand  years  ago;  and  the 
children  of  Israel  yet  expect  a  deliverer.    And  to  conclude,  it  was  foretold 


14 

by  Malachi,  and  believed  by  the  Jews  then,  and  ever  since,  that  Eliai  tht 
prophet,  who  did  not  die,  but  was  removed  from  the  earth,  shonld  precede 
the  coming  of  tlio  Messiah,  and  prepare  them  for  his  reception.  But  the 
prophet  Elias  certainly  has  not  yet  appeared  ! 

Indeed,  notliing  appears  to  be  more  dissimilar  than  the  character  of  the 
Messiah  as  given  by  the  Hebrew  prophets,  and  that  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  It 
seems  scarcely  credible,  that  a  man  who,  though  amiable  and  virtuous,  yet 
lived  in  a  low  state,  was  poor,  living  upon  alms,  without  wealth,  and  without 
power ;  and  who  (though  .by  misfortune)  died  the  death  of  a  malefactor, 
crucified  between  two  robbers,  (a  death  exactly  parallel  with  being  hanged  at 
the  public  gallows  in  the  present  day)  should  ever  be  taken  for  that  mighty 
prince,  that  universal  potentate,  and  benefactor  of  the  human  race,  foretold 
in  the  splendid  language  of  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament. 

CHAPTER  V. 

EXAMINATION     OF    THE    ARGUMENTS    FROM    THE    OLD    TEg.TAMENT    ADDUCED    IN    THE  NEW, 
TO    PHOVE    THAT   JESUS    OF    NAZAKETH    WAS    THE    MESSIAH. 

But  since  one  would  esteem  it  almost  incredible,  that  the  apostles  could 
persuade  men  to  believe  Jesus  to  be  this  Messiah,  unless  they  had  at  least 
some  proof  to  offer  to  their  conviction,  let  us  next  consider,  and  examine,  the 
prgofs  adduced  bj  the  apostles-  and  their  folloAvers,  from  the  Old  Testament 
for  that  purpose. 

Of  the  strength  or  weakness  of  the  proofs  for  Christianity  out  of  the 
Old  Testament,  we  are  well  qualified  to  judge,  as  we  have  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  in  our  hands  ;  the  first  containing  what  are  offered  as  proofs  of 
Christianity,  and  the  latter  the  application  of-  those  proofs,  and  we  should 
seem  to  have  nothing  more  to  do,  but  to  compare  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  together. 

But  these  proofs  taken  out  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  urged  in  the 
New,  being  sometimes  not  to  be  found  in  the  Old,  nor  urged  in  the  NeAv, 
according  to  the  literal  and  obvious  sense,  which  they  appear  to  bear  in  their 
supposed  places  in  the  Old,  and,  therefore,  not  proofs  according  to  the  rules 
of  interpretation  established  by  reason,  and  acted  uiion  in  interpreting  every 
other  ancient  book — almost  all  christian  commentators  on  the  Bible,  and 
advocates  for  the  religion  of  the  New  Testament,  both  ancient, and  modern, 
have  jvidgcd  them  to  be  applied  in  a  secondary,  or  typical,  or  mystical,  or 
allegorical,  or  enigmatical  sense ;  that  is,  in  a  sense  different  from  the 
obvious  and  literal  sense  which  they  bear  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Thus,  for  example,  Matthew,  after  having  given  an  account  of  the 
conception  of  Mary,  and  the  birth  of  Jesus,  says  (ch.  i.,)  "  All  this  was  done 
that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet,  saying.  Behold 
a  virgin  shall  bo  with  child,  and  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  they  shall  call 
his  name  Immanuel.''  But  the  words  as  they  stand  in  Isaiah  ch.  vii.  14,  from 
whence  they  are  taken,  do,  in  their  obvious  and  literal  sense,  relate  to  a 
young  woman  in  the  days  of  Ahaz,  King  of  judah,  as  will  appear,  considering 
the  context. 

When  Rezin,  King  of  Syria,  and  Pekah,  King  of  Israel,  were  confederates 
in  arms  together,  against  Ahaz,  King  of  Judah,  Isaiah  the  prophet  was 
sent  by  God,  fii'st  to  comfort  Ahaz  and  the  nation,  and  then  to  assure 
them  by  a  sign,  that  his  enemies  should  in  a  little  time  be  confounded. 
— But  Aliaz  refusing  a  sign  at  the  prophet's  hand,  the  prophet  said 
(see  the  chapter,)  "The  Lord  shall  give  you  a  sign.     Behold  a  virgin,  or 


15 

*  young  woman'  (for  the  Hebrew  word  means  both  as  was  truly  and  justly- 
asserted  by  the  Jews  in  the  primitive  ages  against  the  christians,  and  is 
now  acknowledged,  and  established  beyond  dispute  by  the  best  Hebrew 
scholars  of  this  age,)  shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name 
Immanuel.  Butter  and  honey  shall  he  eat,  that  he  may  know  to  refuse  tho 
evil  and  choose  the  good.  For  before  the  child  shall  know  to  refuse  the  evil, 
and  choose  the  good,  the  land  which  thou  abhorrest  shall  be  forsaken  of  both 
her  kings."  And  this  sign  is  accordingly  given  Ahaz  by  the  prophet,  who, 
ch.  viii.  V.  2,  18,  took  two  witnesses  and  went  to  the  said  young  woman,  who 
in  due  time  conceived,  and  bare  a  son,  after  whose  birth  the  projects  of 
Rezin  and  Pekah  wei'«,  it  appears,  soon  confounded,  according  to  the 
prophecy  and  sign  given  by  the  prophet. 

And  the  prophet  himself,  puts  it  beyond  dispute,  that  this  is  the  proper 
interpretation  of  the  prophecy,  by  ex2)ress  words,  as  well  as  by  his  whole 
narration ;  for  he  says,  "  Behold  I,  and  the  children  whom  the  Lord  hath 
given  me,  are  for  signs,  and  for  wonders  in  Israel  from  the  Lord  of  Hosts, 
that  dwelleth  in  mount  Zion."     Isaiah  viii.  19. 

This  is  the  plaii\  drift  and  design  of  the  prophet,  literally,  obviously, 
and  primarily  understood :  and  thus  he  is  understood  by  one  of  the  most 
judicious  of  interpreters,  the  great  Grotius.  Indeed,  to  understand  the 
prophet  as  having  the  conception  of  Mary,  and  the  birth  of  her  son  Jesus 
from  a  virgin  mother  literally,  and  primarily  in  view,  is  a-  very  great 
absurdity,  and  contrary  to  the  very  intent  and  design  of  the  sign  given  by 
the  prophet. 

For  the  sign  being  given  by  Isaiah  to  convince  Ahaz  that  he  brought  a 
message  from  God  to  him,  to  assure  him  that  the  two  kings  should  not  succeed 
in  their  attempt -against  him,  how.  could  a  virgin's  conception  and  bearing  a 
son  seven  hundred  years  afterwards,  be  a  sign  to  Ahaz,  that  the  prophet  came 
to  him,  with  the  said  message y>-OHi  Godf  And  how  useless  Avas  it  to  Ahaz,  as 
well  as  absurd  in  itself  iov  the  prophet,  to  say,  "Before  the  child,  born  seven 
hundred  years  hence,  shall  distinguish  between  good  and  evil,  the  land  which 
thou  abhorrest  shall  be  forsaken  of  both  her  kings,"  which  would  be  a 
banter,  instead  of  a  sign. 

But  a  prophecy  of  the  certain  birth  of  a  male  child,  by  a  particular 
female  within  a  short  time,  seems  a  proper  sign,  as  being  not  only  what  could 
not  ivith  certainty,  be  foretold,  except  by  a  person  inspired,  but  considered 
as  soon  coming  to  pass,  it,  consequently,  evidences  itself  to  be  a  divine  sign, 
and  answers  all  the  purposes  of  a  sign.  And  such  a  sign  is  agreeable  to  God's 
conduct  on  -like  occasions ;  witness  his  conduct  to  Gideon  and  Hezekiah. 
Jud.'vi.  ;  2  Kings  xx.  "  > 

This  prophecy,  therefore,  not  being  fulfilled  in  Jesus,  according  to  the 
literal  and  obvious  sense  of  the  words  as  they  stand  in  Isaiah,  it  is  supposed 
that  this,  like  the  other  prophecies  cited  in  the  New  Testament,  is  fulfilled 
in  a  secondary,  or  typical,  or  mystical  sense ;  that  is,  tho  said  prophecy, 
which  was  literally  fulfilled  by  the  birth  of  the  son  foretold  by  the  prophet, 
was  again  fulfilled  by  the  birth  of  Jesus,  as  being  an  event  of  the  same  kind, 
and  intended  to  be  secretly  and  mystically  signified  either  by  the  prophet  or 
by  God,  who  directed  the  prophet's  speech.  If  the  reader  desires  further 
satisfaction  that  the  literal  and  obvious  sense  of  this  prophecy  relates  to  a 
son  to  be  born  in  Isaiah's  time,  and  not  to  Jesus,  he  is  referred  to  tho 
commentator  Grotius,  and  to  Huetius'  Demonstrat.  Evang.  in  loc,  to  the 
ancient  fathers,  and  to  the  most  respectable  of  the  modern  christian 
commentators,  who  all  allow  and  show,  that  the  words  of  Isaiah  are  not 
applicable  to  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  their  literal  sense,  but  only  in  a  mystical, 
vor  figm-ative,  or  allegorical  sense. 


16 

A^ain,  Matthew  gives  us  another  prophecy,  which  he  says  was  fulfilled. 
He  tell  us,  that  Jesus  was  carried  into  Egypt ;  from'whence  he  returned  after 
the  death  of  Herod,  (Mat.  ii.)  "  that  it  might  he  fuJfiUecJ,  which  was  spoken 
of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  saying,  '  out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  son.'" 
Which,  being  word  for  word  in  Hosea,  (ch.  xi.  1)  and  no  where  else  to  bo 
found  in  the  Old  Testament,  are  supposed  to  be  taken  from  thence ;.  where, 
according  to  their  obvious  sense  they  are  no  prophecy  at  all!  but  relate  and 
refer  to  a.  past  action,  viz.,  to  the  calling  of  the  childi'en  of  Israel  out  of 
Egypt,  whicli  will,  I  think,  be  denied  by  few.  This  passage,  therefore,  or, 
as  it  is  styled,  prophecy,  of  Hosca,  is  said  by  learned  men  among  christians, 
to  be  mystically,  or  allegorically,  applied,  in  order  to  render  Matthew's 
application  of  it,  fust ;  and  they  say  all  other  methods  of  some  learned  men 
to  solve  the  difficulty  arising  from  Matthew's  citation  of  this  passage,  hare 
proved  unsuccessful. 

Again,  Matthew  says,  (ch.  ii.)  "Jesus  came,  and  dwelt  at  Nazareth,  that 
it  might  \>(i  fulfilled,  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet,  saying,  '  he  shall  be 
called  a  Nazarene ;' "  but  as  this  passage  does  not  occur  in  the  Old 
Testament  at  all,  we  are  precluded  from  ascertaining  whether  it  be  literal, 
mystical,  or  allegorical. 

Jesus  says  of  John  the  Baptist,  (Mat.  xi.  14)  "  This  is  Elias  that  was  for 
to  come,"  wherein  he  is  supposed  to  refer  to  these  words  of  Malachi,  (ch.  iv. 
4)  "  Behold  I  will  send  you  Elijah  the  prophet,  before  the  coming  of  the 
great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord,"  which,  according  to  their  literal,  and 
obvious  sense,  are  a  prophecy,  that  Elijah  or  Elias  was  to  come  mperson  (which 
we  know  from  the  New  Testament,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  was  the  constant 
expectation  of  the  Jews.)  Besides,  this  Elijah  was  to  come  "  befoi'e  the 
great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord,"  which  has  not  yet  arrived ;  and, 
therefore,  this  prophecy  of  Malachi,  referred  to  by  the  evangelist,  was 
certainly  not  literally,  but  only  mystically,  fulfilled  in  John  the  Baptist. 

Again,  Jesus  (^Iat.  xiii.)  cites  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (Is.  vi.  9,)  "  By 
hearing  ye  shall  hear,  and  shall  not  understand;"  and  he  assures  "us,  that  it 
was  fulfilled  in  his  time  in  those  to  whom  he  spake  in  parables,  (which,  by 
the  way,  he  did,  it  is  said,  in  order  to  fulfil  a  passage  of  the  Psalms)  though 
it  is  manifest  that  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  quoted,  according  to  its  literal 
sense,  undoubtedly  relates  to  the  obstinate  Jews  who  lived  in  the  time  of 
Isaiah. 

In  fine,  fliese,  and  the  many  other  passages  cited  as  prophecies  from  the 
Old  Testament  by  the  authors  of  the  New,  do  so  plainly  relate,  in  their 
obvious  and  primary  sense  to  other  matters  than  those  which  they  are 
adduced  to  prove,  that  it  is  allowed  by  the  most  learned  defenders  of 
Christianity,  that  to  pretend  that  they  prove  in  a  literal  sense  what  they  are 
adduced  to  prove,  is  to  give  up  with  both  hands  the  cause  of  Christianity  to 
the  enemies  thereof,  who  can  so  easily  show  in  so  many  undoubted  instances, 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  have  no  manner  of  connection  in  that  respect, 
but  to  be  in  an  irreconcilable  state. 

These  proofs  from  the  prophets  being  so  different  from  what  we  should 
expect,  it  behoves  us  to  enquire  what  could  induce  Jesus  and  his  apostles  to 
quote  the  Old  Testament  in  such  a  manner? 

The  Jews  shortly  answer  tliis  question,  by  saying,  that  they  did  so, 
because  they  did  not  understand  the  meaning  of  the  books  they  quoted. 
But  it  has  been  answered  by  some  learned  christians,  that  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  did  not  quote  in  the  manner  they  did  through  caprice  or  ignorance, 
but  according  to  certain  methods  of  interpretation,  which  were  in  their  times 
4)f  established  authority  among  the  Jews. 

.  The  rules  of  interpretation,  which  were  supposed  to  be  irrecoverably 


17 

lost,  were  afterwards  recovered  to  the  world  by  the  learned  Surenhusius, 
professor  of  the  Hebrew  language  in  the  illustrious  school  of  Amsterdam. 
He  made  an  ample  discovery  to  the  world  of  the  rules  by  which  the  apostles 
cited  the  Old  Testament,  and  argued  from  thence,  wherein  the  whole 
mystery  of  the  apostles  applying  scripture  in  a  secondary,  or  typical,  or 
allegorical  sense,  seems  to  be  unfolded.  I  shall,  therefore,  state  this  matter 
from  Surenhusius. 

He  (Surenhusius)  says,  "  that  when  he  considered  the  various  opinions 
of  the  learned  about  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  quoted  in  the  New, 
he  was  filled  with  grief,  not  knowing  where  to  set  his  foot ;  and  was  much 
concerned,  that  what  had  been  done  with  good  success  upon  profane  authors, 
could  not  be  so  happily  performed  upon  the  sacred." 

He  tells  us,  "  that  having  had  frequent  occasions  to  converse  with  the 
Jews,  (on  account  of  his  application  to  Hebrew  literature  from  his  youth) 
who  insolently  reflected  upon,  the  New  Testament,  affirming  it  to  be  plainly 
corrupted,  because  it  seldom  or  never  agreed  with  the  Old  Testament,  some 
of  whom  were  so  confident  in  this  opinion,  as  to  say,  they  would  profess  the 
Christian  religion,  if  any  one  could  reconcile  the  New  Testament  with  the  Old. 
"  I  was  the  more  grieved,  because,  (says  this  honest  and  well  meaning  man)  I 
knew  not  how  to  apply  a  remedy  to  this  evil."  But  the  matter  being  of  great 
importance,  he  "  discoursed  with  several  learned  men  about  it,  and  read  the 
books  of  others,  being  persuaded  that  the  authors  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  had  written  nothing  but  what  was  suited  to  the  time  wherein  they 
lived,  and  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  had  constantly  followed  the  method 
of  their  ancestors.  After  he  had  long  revolved  this  hypothesis  in  his  mind, 
at  last  he  met  with  a  Rabbi  well  skilled  in  the  Talmud,  the  Cabbala,  and  the 
allegorical  books  of  the- Jews.  This  Rabbi  had  once  embraced  the  Christian 
religion,  but  was  again  relapsed  to  Judaism  on  account  of  the  idolatry  of 
the  Papists,  yet  not  perfectly  disbelieving  the  integrity  of  the  New 
Testament.  Surenhusius  asked  him,  what  he  thought  of  the  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament  quoted  in  the  New,  whether  they  were  rightly  quoted  or  not, 
and  whether  the  Jews  had  any  just  reason  to  cavil  at  them,  and  at  the  same 
time  proposed  to  him  two  or  three  passages,  which  had  very  much  exercised 
the  most  learned  christian  commentators. 

The  Rabbi  having  admirably  explained  those  passages,  to  the  great 
surprise  of  Surenhusius,  and  confirming  his  explications  by  several  places  of 
the  Talmud,  and  other  writings  of  the  Jewish  commentators,  and  allegorical 
writers,  Surenhusius  asked  him  what  would  be  the  best  method  to  write  a 
treatise  in  order  to  vindicate  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  quoted  in 
the  New  ?  The  Rabbi  answered,  that  he  "  thought  the  best  way  of  succeeding 
in  such  an  undertaking  would  bo  to  peruse  a  great  part  of  the  Talmud,  and 
the  allegorical  and  literal  commentators ;  to  observe  their  several  ways  of 
quoting  and  interpreting  scripture,  and  to  collect  as  many  materials  of  that 
kind,  as  would  be  sufficient  for  that  purpose." 

Surenhusius  took  the  hint  immediately:  he  read  such  books  as  were 
recommended,  observed  every  thing  that  might  be  subservient  to  his  design, 
and  made  a  book  upon  the  subject.  And  in  the  third  part  of  that  book  he 
gives  us  the  rules  so  long  sought  after,  viz.,  the  ten  ways*  used,  he  says,  by 
the  Jewish  doctors  in  citing  scripture.     And  here  they  are  : — 

1.  The  first  rule  is — "reading  the  words  of  the  Hebrew  bible,  not 
according  to  the  points  placed  under  them,  but  according  to  other  points 

*  For  a  more  correct  enumeration  of  the  thirteen  cabalistic  rules  of  exposition,  • 
the  English  reader  is  referred   to  vol.  1,   page  209,   of  the   "Conciliator"   of  R. 
Menasseh  ben  Israel,  translated  by  E.  H.  Lindo,  Esqr. — D. 
C 


18 

s\ibstitut4:d  in  their  stead,"  as  is  done  by  Peter,  Acts  iii.  3  ;  by  Stephen,  Acta  rii. 
43,  and  by  Paul,  1  Cor.  xv.  54  ;  2  Cor'  yiii.  15,  and  Ileb.  iii'.  10  ;  ix.  21 ;  xii.  6. 

2.  The  second  rule  is — "  changinr/  the  letters,  whether  those  letters  bo  of 
the  same  organ  (as  the  Hebrew  grammarians  speak,)  or  not,"  as  is  dono  by 
Paul,  Rom.  ix.  33;  1  Cor.  xi.  9;  Ileb.  viii.  9,  and  x.  5;  and  by  Stephen, 
Acts  vii.  43. 

3.  The  third  is — *•  changing  both  Utters  and  x)oints"  as  is  done  by  Paul, 
Acts  xiii.  41,  and  2  Cor.  viii.  15. 

4.  The  fourth  is^ — "  adding  some  letter,  and  taking  away  others." 

5.  The  fifth  is — "  transposing  words  and  letters." 

6.  The  sixth  is — "dividing  one  word  into  two." 

7.  The  seventh  is — "  adding  other  words  to  those  in  the  text,  in  order  to 
make  the  sense  more  clear,  and  to  accommodate  it  to  the  subject  they  are 
upon." 

8.  The  eighth  is—"  changing  the  order  of  words." 

9.  The  ninth  is — "  changing  the  order  of  words,  and  addiug  other  words." 

10.  The  tenth  is — "changing  the  order  Of  wor<ls,  adding  words,  and 
retrenching  words,"  which,  (says  he)  is  a  method  often  used  by  Paid.  Of  tho 
application  of  all  these  rules,  he  gives  examples  taken  from  tlie  New 
Testament. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  make  many  observations  upon  those  rules,  thoy 
sjieak  for  themselves  most  significantly :  for  what  is  there  that  cannot  bo 
proved  from  the  Old  Testament,  or  any  other  book,  yea,  from  Euclid's 
Elements !  or  even  an  old  almanac !  by  the  help  of  "  altering  words  and 
sentences ;  adding ;  retrenching ;  and  transposing,  and  cutting  words  in 
two,"  as  is  stated  above  by  a  learned  and  good  man,  and  sincere  Christian 
who  found  out,  and  brought  forward,  these  rules,  as  the  best  means  of 
getting  tho  authors  of  the  New  Testament  out  of  a  difficulty,  which  had  long 
shocked  and  grieved  their  best  friends. 

CHAPTER    VI. 

KXAMINATION    OF     TUB     MEANING     OF     THK     PHRASE     "THIS    WAS    DONE    THAT    IT   MIGnV 

BE   FULFILLED." 

It  may  be  objected  from  divers  learned  authors,  who  have  been  very 
sensible  of  the  difficulties  stated  in  the  preceding  chapters,  and  have, 
therefore,  taken  other  ground  than  their  predecessors,  in  order  to  defend 
themselves  the  better;  I  saj-,  it  may  be  objected  to  what  I  have  advanced, 
that  Christianity  is  not  in  fact  grounded  on  the  prophetical,  or  other, 
quotations  made  from  the  Old,  in  the  New,  Testament ;  but  that  those 
quotations  being  allegorically  ai)plied  by  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament, 
are  merely  arguments  ad  hominem,  to  convince  the  Jews  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  who  allowed  such  a  method  of  arguing  to  be  valid,  and  are  not 
arguments  to  the  rest  of  mankind. 

To  which  I  answer — That  this  distinction  is  the  pure  invention  of  those 
who  make  the  objection,  and  not  only  has  no  foundation  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  is  utterly  subverted  by  its  express  declarations;  for  the 
authors  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  always  argue  absolutely  from  the 
quotations  they  cite  as  prophecies  out  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Moses  and  the  prophets  are  every  where  represented  to  be  a  just  foundation 
for  Christianity  ;  and  the  author  of  tho  Epistle  to  the  Romans  expressly  says, 
ch.  xvi.  25,  26,  "  The  gospel,  which  was  kept  secret  since  the  world  began, 
was  now  made  ma^ii^fest  by  the  scriptures  of  the  prophets  (wherein  that  gospel 
was  secretly  contained)  to  all  nations,"  by  the  means  of  the  preachers  of  Hie 


19 

gospel  who  gave  the  secret  or  spiritual  sense  of  those  scriptures  ;  for  to  the 
ancient  Jews,  according  to  them,  the  gospel  was  preached  by  the  types  of 
their  law,  and,  therefore,  must  have  been  considered  as  truly  contained  in  it. 

Besides,  the  authors  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  convinced 
long  before  the  publication  of  them,  that  the  gospel  was  to  be  preached  to 
the  Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews,  to  both  of  whom,  therefore,  they  reasoned 
allegorically  in  their  books,  as  Peter  and  others  did  in  their  sermons,  though 
with  greater  success-  on  Gentiles  than  on  Jews  ;  and  as  Paul  did  before  Felix, 
when  he  said  ho  took  his  heresy,  or  Christianity,  from  the  law,  and  the 
prophets,  Acts  xxiv.,  as  also  he  did  before  Agrippa.  It  would,  therefore, 
seem  strange,  that  books  written  to  all  the  world  by  men  equally  concerned 
to  convert  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  and  that  discourses  made  expressly  to 
Gentiles  as  well  as  to  Jews,  should  be  designed  to  be  pertinent  only  to  Jews, 
much  less  to  a  very  few  Jews!  Indeed,  lam  ashamed  at.  being  thus  long 
engaged  in  showing  what  must  be  self  evident ;  and  did  I  not  fear  being 
further  tedious  to  my  i-eaders,  I  would  undertake  to  bring  together  passages 
from  the  New  Testament,  where  the  meaning  and  intention  of  the  writers  is 
obvious,  in  such  abundance,  as  would  immediately  and  entirely  put  the 
hypothesis  of  our  opponents  out  of  countenance. 

These  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  are  certainly  urged,  and 
spoken  of  as  direct  proofs,  as  absolute  proofs  in  themselves,  and  not  as  mere 
proofs  ad  hominem  to  the  Jews ;  for  if  these  prophecies  are  only  urged  by 
the  apostles  as  proofs  to  the  Jews,  and  intended  only  as  proofs  founded  on 
the  mistaken  meanings  of  the  Old  Testament  of  some  Jews  of  their  time, 
what  sense  is  there  in  appealing  upon  all  occasions  to  the  prophets,  and 
recommending  the  reading  and  search  of  the  Old  Testament  for  the  trial  and 
proof  of  what  was  preached  ?  for  that  M'as.  to  jiroceed  on  weakness  itself, 
knowing  it  to  bo  so.  Certainly  nothing,  but  a  real  persuasion,  that  the 
prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  were  really  fulfilled  in  Jesus,  could  make 
them  every  where  inculcate  and  appeal  to  the  fulfilling  of  prophecy.  In 
order  to  support  their  hypothesis.  Christians  have  been  forced  to  seek 
evidence  to  prove,  that  the  phrase — "  this  was  done  that  it  might  be  fulfilled," 
so  frequent  in  the  New  Testament,  meant  no  such  thing,  but  was  only  a  habit 
the  Jews  had  got  of  introducing  by  such  jjlirases  a  handsome  quotation,  or 
allusion,  from  the  Old  Testament.  But  this  evasion  must  be  given  up,  upon 
two  accounts.  1.  Because  most  of  the  European  biblical  critics  of  the 
present  day  (the  learned  annotator  on  Michaelis'  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament,  Dr.  Marsh,  among  others)  frankly  acknowledge  it  not  to  bo 
tenable ;  and  2.  Because  it  can  be  proved  not  to  be  so  from  the  New 
Testament  itself.  For  example,  when  John  represents  (Jo.  xix.  28,)  Jesus 
upon  the  cross  saying,  "  '  /  thirst,'  that  the  scripture  might  be  fulfilled"  doth 
he  not  plainly  represent  Jesus  as  fulfilling  a  prophecy  which  foretold  that  the 
Messiah  should  thirst,  or  say,  "J thirst,"  upon  the  cross?  Nay,  does  he  not 
suppose  him  to  say  so,  in  order  to  fulfil,  or  that  he  might  fulfil,  a  prophecy  ? 
Is  it  not  also  suitable  to  the  character  of  Jesus,  who  founded  his  Messiahship 
on  the  prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  could  not  but  have  the 
accomplishment  of  those  prophecies  constantly  in  view  to  fulfil,  and  to  intend 
to  fulfil  them  ?  And  is  it  not  unsuitable  in  John,  in  describing  his  master 
dying  upon  the  cross,  to  represent  him  as  saying  things,  whereby  he  only 
gave  occasion  tO' observe,  that  he  fulfilled,  i.  e.,  accommodated  a  phrase!  not 
a  prophecy ! ! 

Besides,  they  who  set  up  this  accommodating  principle  of  accommodation, 
do,  in  some  cases,  take  the  term  fulfilled  in  its  proper  sense,  and  do  allow  it, 
(when  convenient)  to  relate  to  a  prophecy  really  fulfilled.  But  I  would  ask 
them,  what  rule  they  have  to  know  when  the  apostles  mean  a  prophecy 


20 

fulfilled,  and  when  a  phrase  accommodated,  since  they  are  acltnowlcdged  to 
use  the  strong  expression  of  fulfilling  in  the  latter  case  no  less  than  in  the 
former  ? 

In  a  word,  unless  it  be  granted,  that  the  citations  were  intended  by  the 
authors  of  the  New  Testament,  to  be  adduced,  and  applied,  as  prophecies 
fulfilled ;  if  you  do  suppose  them  not  intended  to  be  adduced,  and  applied,  as 
prophecies  ;  then,  the  whole  aflair  of  Jesus  being  foretold  as  the  Alessiah,  is 
reduced  to  an  accommodation  of  phrases  !  and  it  will,  assuredly,  follow,  that 
the  citations  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles  out  of  the  Old  Testament,  are  like, 
and  no  better  than  the  work  of,  the  Empress  Eudoxia,  who  wrote  the  History 
of  Jesus  in  verses  put  together,  and  borrowed  out  of — Homkr  !  or  that  of  Proba 
Falconia,  who  did  the  same,  in  verses,  and  words  taken  out  of — Virgil  ! 

.In  fine,  one  of  two  things  must  be  allowed,  either  (which  is  most 
probable)  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament  conceived  their  citations  to 
be  indeed  prophecies  concerning  Jesus,  and  then  they  were  ignorant  and 
blundered,  and,  therefore,  were  not  inspired  ;  or,  they  knowingly  used  them 
as  means  to  deceive  the  simple  and  credulous  into  a  belief  of  their  being 
testimonies  sufficient  to  prove  Mhat  they  themselves  knew  they  had  no 
relation  to ; — and  then  they  Avere  deceivers  :  there  is  no  other  alternative,  and 
each  hoi'n  of  the  dilemma,  must  prove  as  fatal  as  the  other. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  said,  "  It  is  to  no  purpose  for  you  to  object  to  the 
quotations  or  the  arguments  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  for  God  was  with  them, 
confirming  their  doctrine  by  signs  following,  they  had  from  God  the  power 
of  working  miracles,  and,  consequently,  their  interpretations  of  Scripture, 
however  strange  they  may  appear  to  your  minds,  must  be  infallible,  they 
being  men  inspired." 

To  this  argument  it  can  be  justly  answered,  first,  that  the  question, 
whether  Jesus  be  the  Messiah,  entirely  depends,  as  proved  before,  upon  his 
answering  the  characteristics  given  of  that  personage  by  the  Jewish 
prophets  ;  and  all  the  miracles  in  the  world  could  never,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  prove  him  to  be  so,  unless  his  character  does  entirely  agree  with  the 
archetype  laid  down  by  them,  as  had  been  already  abundantly  proved. 

Secondly, — That  whether  these  miracles  were  really  performed,  or  not, 
depends  entirely  upon  the  credibility  of  the  authors  themselves  who  have 
thus  quoted !  which,  as  shall  be  shown  hereafter,  may  be  disputed ;  and, 
thirdly,  it  could  be  retorted  upon  Protestants^  that  this  same  argument  is  the 
same  in  principle  with  the  often  refuted  popish  argumentation.  The  Papists 
pretend  to  derive  all  their  new  invented  and  absurd  doctrines  and  practices 
from  the  scriptures  by  their  interpretations  of  them  ;  but  yet,  when  their 
interpretations  are  attacked  from  scripture,  they  immediately  fly  from  thence 
to  the  miracles  wrought  in  their  church,  and  to  the  visions  of  their  holy  men 
aijd  saints,  for  the  establishment  of  their  interpretations,  by  which  they 
support  those  very  doctrines  and  practices.  And  particularly  they  endeavour 
to  prove  thus  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  from  the  numerous  miracles 
afl&rmed  to  have  been  wrought  in  its  behalf,  which  reasoning  Protestant 
Christians  assert  to  he  an  argument  absurd  and  inconclusive,  therefore,  they 
should  not  use  it  themselves. 

We  allow,  that  if  these  interpretations  of  the  sense  of  tlie  Old  Testament 
had  been  in  existence  before  the  christian  era^  it  might  be  something.  But 
we  beg  leave  to  remind  them,  that  it  is  certain,  that  these  interpretations 
were  not  published  till  after  the  events  to  which  they  are  referred  took  place, 
which  is  a  circumstance  of  obvious  signifcaney. 

In  fine,  to  this  argument  I  would  answer,  as  in  Cicero  (de  Natura  Deor. 
Ed.  Dav.  p.  209)  Cotta  did  to  Balbus — "  rtimoribus  mecum  pugnas,  ego  autem 
a  te  rationcs  require." 


21 

CHAPTER  VII. 

EXAMINATION    OF    THE    ABGUMENTS   ALLEGED    FROM    THE   HEBREW    rKOrHETS,   TO    PROVE 
THAT    JESCS   WAS   THE    MESSIAH. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  how  it  Avas  possible,  that  wise  aud  good  men  could 
hare  been  led  to  embrace  the  religion  of  the  New  Testament,  if  there  were 
BOt  in  the  Old  Testament  some  prophecies  which  might  be  conceived  by 
them  to  supply,  at  least,  plausible  arguments  to  prove  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
■was  the  Messiah  ?  Are  there  no  other  passages  in  the  prophets  besides 
those  quoted  in  the  New  Testament,  and  are  there  not  a  few  passages  quoted 
in  the  New  Testament,  which  appear  more  to  the  purpose  than  those  we 
have  been  considering  ?  To  this  I  candidly  answer  that  there  are,  and  this 
chapter  will  be  devoted  to  the  consideration  of  them. 

Two  of  these  prophecies,  one  from  Genesis,  and  the  other  from  Daniel, 
are  thought  by  the  advocates  of  Christianity,  (because  they  conceive  them  to 
point  out  and  to  limit  the  time  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,)  to  be  stronger 
in  their  favour  than  any  of  those  quoted  in  the  New  Testament.  If  so,  it  is 
a  very  singular  circumstance,  that  the  inspired  authors  of  the  New  Testament 
did  not  make  use  of  them  instead  of  others  not  so  much  to  the  purpose.  This 
circumstance  of  itself  should  teach  us  to  examine  the  prophecies  in  question 
with  caution,  and  also  with  candour,  since  many  worthy  and  religious  men 
have  thought  them  sufficient  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  indeed  the  Messiah. 
These  prophecies  I  shall  reserve  last  for  consideration,  and  shall  now  begin 
with  the  others  usually  adduced,  taking  them  up  pretty  much  in  the  order 
in  which  they  stand  in  the  Old  Testament. 

The  first  passage  is  taken  from  Deut.  xviii.  15,  "  The  Lord  thy  God  will 
raise  up  unto  thee  a  prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee,  like  unto  me,  unto  him 
ye  shall  hearken.  According  to  all  that  thou  desiredst  of  the  Lord  thy  God 
In  Horeb,  in  the  day  of  the  assembly,  saying.  Let  me  not  hear  again  the  voice 
of  the  Lord  my  God,  neither  let  me  see  his  great  fire  any  more,  that  I  die  not. 
And  the  Lord  said  unto  me,  they  have  well  spoken  that  which  they  have 
spoken.  I  will  raise  them  up  a  prophet  from  among  their  brethren,  like 
unto  thee,  and  I  will  put  my  words  into  his  mouth,  and  he  shall  speak 
unto  them  all  that  I  command  him.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that 
whosoever  will  not  hearken  unto  my  words  which  he  shall  speak  in  my  name, 
I  will  require  it  of  him." 

This  passage  is  pertinaciously  and  solely  applied  to  Jesus,  by  many 
Christian  writers,  because  it  is  so  applied  by  Peter  in  the  2  chap,  of  Acts,  in 
his  sermon  to  the  Jews,  just  after  he  had  received  the  full  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  of  course  must  be  considered  as  infallible.  Nevertheless, 
these  words  of  Moses  are  supposed  by  many  learned  men,  both  Jews  and 
Christians,  to  be  spoken  of  Joshua,  whom  Moses  himself  afterwards,  at  the 
command  and  appointment  of  God,  declared  to  be  his  successor,  and  who 
was  endowed  Avitli  the  spirit  which  was  upon  Moses,  (see  Deut.  xxxi.  33, 
xxxiv.  17,)  and  to  whom  the  Jews  then  promised  to  hearken,  and  pay 
obedience  to,  as  they  had  done  before  to  Moses.  But  others  imderstand 
them  to  be  a  promise  of  a  succession  of  prophets,  to  whom  the  Jews  might 
upon  all  occasions  have  recourse  ;  and  one  or  tlie  other  of  these  seems  to  be 
the  certain  meaning  of  the  place.  From  this  consideration,  that  from  the 
context  it  appears  Moses  was  giving  the  Jews  directions  of  fwmcciirt^e  use ; 
and,  thei-efore,  in  promising  a  prophet  to  them,  to  whom  they  should  hearken, 
he  seems  to  intend  an  immediate  prophet  who  might  be  of  use  to  the  Jews, 
and  answer  their  common  exigencies,  and  noi  di,  ^vo^hei  two  thousand  years 
to  come. 


22 

But  I  take  the  words  to  promise  a  mccession  of  prophets,  and  for  that 
BenBO  -wherein  Grotius  and  Lo  Clerc,  and  most  of  the  Jews,  take  them.  I 
shall  give  my  reasons  for  this,  and  show  that  they  do  not  necessarily  refer  to 
Jesus  Christ. 

Moses,  in  the  verses  preceding  this  prophecy  in  the  same  chapter,  (Deut. 
xviii.  9 — 14)  tells  the  Israelites  from  God,  that  "when  they  came  into 
Canaan,  they  should  not  learn  to  do  after  the  abominations  of  the  people 
thereof;  and,  particularly,  that  there  should  not  be  found  among  them  any 
one  that  useth  divination,  or  an  observer  of  times,  &c.,  or  a  consulter  with 
familiar  spirits,  &c.  For  all,  says  he,  "  that  do  these  things  are  an  abomination 
to  the  Lord  ;  and  because  of  these  abominations  the  Lord  thy  God  doth 
drive  these  people  out  from  before  thee.  For  these  nations  which  thou  shalt 
possess  hearkened  unto  observers  of  times,  and  unto  diviners.  But  as  for  thee, 
the  Lord  thy  God  hath  not  suffered  thee  to  do  so."^  Then  follow  the  words 
about  the  prophet,  "  The  Lord  thy  God  will  raise  unto  thee  a  prophet  from 
the  midst  of  thee  of  thy  brethren  like  unto  me,  unto  him  ye  shall  hearken." 
All  which  is  as  much  as  to  say,  "  "When  you  come  into  Canaan,  do  not  hearken 
to  a  diviner,  &c.,  as  the  Canaanites  do,  for  the  Lord  will  give  yoii  a  prophet 
of  your  own  brethren  inspired  like  me,  to  guide  any  instruct  you,  to  whom 
ye  shall  hearken."  Or  rather,  "Do  not  hearken  to  diviners,  &c.,  but  to 
prophets,  who  shall  be  raised  up  among  you." 

Now  that  the  words  cited  must  relate  to  a  succession  of  prophets,  to 
begin  upon  the  Israelites  taking  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  is  manifest; 
because,  the  raising  up  of  a  prophet,  to  whom  they  were  to  hearken,  is  the 
reason  given  why  they  should  not  hearken  to  a  diviner,  &c.,  when  they  came  to 
that  land  ;  which  reason  could  have  no  force  imlcss  they  were  to  have,  1st, — 
an  immediate  prophet  in  Canaan;  for  what  sense  is  there,  or  would  there  be, 
in  saying,  "Don't  hearken  to  such  diviners  as  are  in  Canaan,  when  you  come 
there,  for  you  shall  have  a  prophet  of  your  own,  to  whom  ye  shall  hearken  two 
thousand  years  after  you  come  there  !" 

Secondly, — As  the  context  shows  that  the  prophet  to  be  raised  up,  was  an 
immediate  prophet,  so  it  also  shows,  that  the  singular  number  here  stands/or 
the  plural,  according  to  the  frequent  custom  of  the  Hebrew  language,  as  is 
shown  by  Le  Clerc  and  Stillingfleet,  in  loco  ;  for  one  single  prophet  to  be 
raised  up  immediateh',  who  might  soon  die,  could  not  be  a  reason  why  Jews 
of  succeeding  generations  should  not  barken  to  diviners  in  Canaan. 

Finally, — The  words  of  God  by  Moses,  which  follow  the  promise  of  a 
prophet,  evidently  show  that  by  that  promise  prophets  were  intended,  in 
laying  down  a  rule  for  the  test  or  trial  of  the  prophets  before  mentioned, 
in  such  a  manner  as  implies,  that  that  rule  was  to  be  applied  to  all  prophets 
pretending  to  come  from  him.     See  the  words  in  Deut.  xviii.,  19 — 22. 

I  shall  conclude  this  explication,  by  adducing,  in  confirmation  of  it,  the 
paraphrase  of  the  words  given  in  the  Targura  of  Jonathan.  "  The  nations 
you  are  about  to  possess,  (says  the  Jewish  paraphrast)  hearken  to  jugglers  and 
diviners;  but  you  shall  not  be  like  them  ,-  for  yoxir  priests  shall  enquire  by 
Urim  and  Thummim,  and  the  Lord  your  God  shall  give  you  a  true  pro- 
phet." And  this  explication  is  the  one  adopted  by  Origen, — [Contra 
Celsum,  p.  28.] 

As  to  the  difficulty  that  is  raised  against  this  explication  from  the  words 
at  the  end  of  Deuteronomy — "  that  there  arose  not  a  prophet  since  in  Israel 
like  unto  Moses  whom  the  Lord  knew  face  to  face.  In  all  the  signs  and 
wonders  which  the  Lord  sent  him  to  do,"  &c. — it  is  nothing  at  all.  For 
every  one  perceives,  that  the  word  "  like"  may  be,  and  frequently  is,  used  in 
scripture,  and  in  common  language,  to  signify  similarity  in  some,  though  not 
in  every,  particular;  and  every  prophet,  who  speaks  by  God's  direction,  is  a 


23 

prophet  "  like  unto  Moses,"  who  did  the  same,  though  he  be  not  like,  or 
equal  to,  him  ••'  in  doing  signs  and  wonders,"  which  is  all  that  is  affirmed  in 
the  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy. 

And,  finally,  there  is  nothing  to  limit  this  prophecy  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
if  wo  allowed  (what  we  reject)  the  christian  interpretation  ;  since  God  might 
to-morrow,  if  such  were  his  will,  raise  up  a  prophet  like  unto  Moses  in  every 
respect,  which  Jesus  certainly  was  not ;  therefore,  it  cannot  be  applied  and 
restrained  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  quoted  by  Peter. 

^  There  is  in  the  same  sermon,  in  the  2  chap,  of  Acts,  another  passage 
quoted  by  Peter  from  the  Psalms,  and  applied  by  him  to  prove  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  on  which  he  lays  very  great  stress,  which  after  all 
seems  to  be  nothing  to  the  purpose.  Peter  says,  "Him(i.  e.,  Jesus)  God 
hath  raised  up,  having  loosed  the  pains  [or  bands]  of  death,  because  it  waa 
not  possible  that  ho  should  be  holden  of  it.'  And  why ?  " For  [because] 
David  speaketh  concerning  him,  '  I  foresaw  the  Lord  always  before  my  face, 
for  he  is  on  my  right  hand,  that  I  should  not  be  moved.  Therefore  did  my 
heart  rejoice,  and  my  tongue  was  glad  :  moreover  also  my  flesh  shall  rest  in 
hope.  Because  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  Hades,  [the  place  of  departed 
spirits]  nor  suffer  thy  holi/  one  to  see  corruption,  thou  hast  made  known  to  me 
the  ways  of  life  ;  thou  shalt  make  me  full  of  joy  with  thy  countenance.'  Men 
and  brethren,  let  me  freely  speak  unto  you  of  the  patriarch  David,  that  he  is 
both  dead  and  buried,  and  his  sepulclire  is  with  us  unto  this  day.  Therefore, 
being  a  prophet,  and  knowing  th^it  God  had  sworn  with  an  oath  to  him,  that 
of  the  fruit  of  his  loins  according  to  the  flesh,  he  would  raise  up  Christ  to  sit 
upon  his  throne.  He,  seeing  this  before,  spake  of  the,  resurrection  of  Ch-ist, 
that  his  soul  was  not  left  in  Hades,  neither  did  his  flesh  see  corruption." 

How  imposing  is  this  argument !  How  plausible  it  appears!  And  yet  it 
is  irrelevant,  as  Dr.  Priestly  frankly  confesses,  who  tries  to  save  the  credit  of 
the  apostle  by  the  convenient  principle  of  accommodation  !  The  whole  force 
of  Peter's  reasoning  depends  upon  the  word  "  corruption."  David  did  see 
corruption ;  therefore,  he  could  not  mean  himself,  but  "  being  a  prophet," 
&c.,  he  meant  Jesus  Christ.  Now,  the  whole  of  Peter's  argument  is 
grounded  upon  two  mistakes ;  for,  1st,  the  Hebrew  word  translated 
"  corruption,"  here  signifies  "  destruction,  perdition ;"  and  in  the  next  place, 
instead  of  being  "thy  holy  one,"  in  the  singular,  it  is  in  the  Hebrew  "thy 
saints,"  in  general.  The  passage  is  quoted  from  the  16th  Psalm  ;  and  I  will 
give  a  literal  translation  of  it  from  the  original,  which  will  make  the  propriety 
or  impi-opriety  of  Peter's  quotation  perfectly  obvious.  The  contents  and 
import  of  the  Psalm,  according  to  the  English  version,  are  as  follow : 
"  David,  in  distrust  of  his  merits,  and  hatred  of  idolatry,  fleeth  to  God  for 
preservation,  He  showeth  the  hope  of  his  calling,  of  the  resurrection,  and  of 
life  everlasting."  And  the  passage  in  question,  according  to  the  original, 
reads  thus  : — "  I  have  set  the  Lord  always  before  me  :  Because  he  is  on  my 
right  hand,  I  shall  not  be  moved  :  Therefore  my  heart  is  glad,  and  my  glory 
[i.  e.,  tongue]  rejoiceth:  My  flesh  also  shall  rest  in  hope.  For  thou  wilt  not 
leave  my  soul  in  Hades,  neither  wilt  thou  sufi"er  thy  saints  to  see  destruction. 
Thou  wilt  show  me  the  path  of  life  :  In  thy  presence  is  fullness  of  joy,  and  at 
thy  right  hand  are  pleasures  for  evermore."  That  is — "Because  I  have  erer 
trusted  in  thee,  and  experienced  thy  constant  protection,  therefore  I  will  not 
fear  death ;  because  thou  wilt  not  for  ever  leave  my  soul  in  the  place  of 
departed  spirits,  nor  suff'er  thy  saints  to  perish  from  existence.  Thou  wilt 
raise  me  from  the  dead,  and  make  me  happy  for  ever  in  thy  presence."* 

*  Mr.  E.  was,  doubtless,  aware  that  this  is  an  exposition  given  by  Jewish 
Commentators. — D. 


24 

In  the  4th  chap,  of  the  Acts,  the  apostles  are  represented  as  praying  to 
God,  and  referring  in  their  prayer  to  the  2d  Psalm  "  why  did  the  heatnen 
rage,"  &.C.,  as  being  a  prophecy  of  the  opposition  of  the  Jews  to  Jesus ;  with 
how  much  justice  may  bo  seen  from  these  circumstances. 

1.  That  "the  nations,"  as  it  is  in  the  original,  did  not  assemble  together 
to  crucify  Jesus,  as  this  was  done  by  a  few  soldiers.  2.  The  "  kings  of  the 
earth"  had  no  hand  in  it,  for  they  knew  nothing  about  it.  And  3rdly,  Those 
who  were  concerned  did  by  no  means  "  form  vain  designs,"  since  they 
effected  their,  cruel  purpose.  And  lastly,  From  that  time  to  the  present, 
God  has  not  set  Jesus  as  his  king  upon  the  "  holy  hill  of  Sion,"  as  the  Psalm 
imports,  nor  given  him  "  the  nations  for  his  inheritance,  nor  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth  for  a  possession." 

The  next  prophecy  usually  adduced  to  prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  is 
the  passage  quoted  from  Micah  v.  2,  in  the  2d  chapter  of  Mat. — "  But  from 
Bethlehem  Ephratah,  though  thou  be  little  among  the  chiefs  of  Judah,  yet 
out  of  thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto  me,  that  is,  to  be  ruler  in  Israel,  whose 
goings  forth  have  been  from  old,  from  the  days  of  hidden  ages."     This 

Sassage  probably  refers  to  the  Messiah,  but  by  no  means  signifies  that  this 
[essiah  was  to  be  born  in  Bethlehem,  as  asserted  by  Matthew  ;  but  only,  that 
he  was  to  be  derived  from  Bethlehem,  the  city  of  Jesse,  the  father  of  David  of 
famous  memory,  whose  family  was  venerable  for  its  antiquity,  "  being  of  the 
days  of  hidden  ages."  And  this  interpretation  is  kno^^Ti,  and  ackrtowledged, 
by  Hebrew  scholars.  But  in  order  to  cut  short  the  dispute,  Ave  will  permit 
the  passage  to  be  interpreted  as  signifying  that  Bethlehem  was  to  be  the 
birth  place  of  the  Messiah.  What  then?  Will  a  man's  being  born  in 
Bethlehem  be  sufficient  to  make  him  to  be  the  Messiah  foretold  by  the 
Hebrew  prophets  ?  Surely  it  has  been  made  plain  in  the  beginning  of  this 
work,  that  many  more  characteristic  mai-ks  than  this  iiiust  meet  in  one  person 
in  order  to  constitute  him  the  Messiah  described  by  them ! 

In  Zechariah  ix.  9,  it  is  written,  "  Rejoice  greatly,  O  Daughter  of  Sion, 
Shout,  O  Daughter  of  Jerusalem !  Behold  thy  king  cometh  unto  thee,  the 
righteous  one,  and  saved,  or  preserved  [according  to  the  Hebrew]  lowly,  and 
riding  upon  an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt,  the  foal  of  an  ass."  This  has  been 
applied  by  the  evangelists  to  Jesus,  Avho  rode  upon  an  ass  into  Jerusalem. 

But  in  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  there  seems  to  have  been 
a  blunder  in  this  transaction ;  for  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom  of  the 
passage  quoted  above,  the  personage  there  spoken  of,  was  to  ride  upon  "  an 
ass'  colt ;"  whereas,  the  apostles,  in  order  to  be  sure  of  fulfilling  the  prophecy, 
represent  Jesus  as  riding  upon  an  ass,  and  the  colt,  too  !  "  They  spread  their 
garments  \x\}Oi\  them,  and  set  him  upon  tliem."  [See  the  evangelists  in  loc] 
In  the  next  place,  a  man  may  ride  into  Jerusalem  upon  an  ass,  without 
being  thus  necessarily  demonstrated  to  be  the  Messiah.  And  unless,  as  said 
before,  everi/  tittle  of  the  marks  given  by  the  prophets  to  designate  their 
Messiah,  be  found  in  Jesus,  and  in  any  other  claiming  to  be  that  Messiah, 
his  being  born  in  Bethlehem,  and  riding  upon  an  ass  into  Jerusalem,  will  by 
no  means  prove  him  to  be  so.  Besides,  those  who  will  take  the  trouble  to 
look  at  the  context  in  Zechariah,  will  find,  that  the  event  spoken  of  in  the 
quotation,  is  spoken  oi  as  coiitemporaneoiis  with  the  restoration  of  Israel,  and 
the  establishment  of  peace  ancl  happiness,  M'hich  seems  to  cut  up  by  the 
roots  the  interpretation  of  the  evangelists.  And  to  conclude  the  argument, 
— Jesus  being  born  in  Bethlehem,  and  riding  into  Jerusalem,  allowing  it  to 
be  true,  would  not,  we  think,  frustrate  these  prophecies  of  a  future  fulfilment 
— for  no  one  can  disprove,  that  if  so  be  the  will  of  God,  such  a  person  as  the 
Messiah  is  described  to  be,  might  be  born  in  Bethlehem  to-morrow,  and  ride 
in  triumph  into  Jerusalem,  twenty  years  afterwards. 


25 

The  next  passage  which  has  been  offered,  as  a  prophecy  of  Jesus,  is  to 
be  found  in  the  12th  chap,  of  Zech.  v.  10,  and  part  of  it  has  been  misquoted 
by  John.  "  And  I  will  pour  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  supplications,  and  they 
shall  look  on  me  whom  they  have  pierced."  So  it  stands  in  the  English 
version;  but,  before  I  state  what  it  ought  to  be,  I  would  observe,  that 
before  the  evangelist,  (who  in  his  accout  of  the  crucifixion  applies  this  passage 
as  referring  to  Jesus'  being  pierced  with  a  spear)  could  make  this  passage  fit 
his  purpose,  he  had  to  substitute  the  word  "  him"  for  "  me,"  as  it  is  in  the 
Hebrew ;  confirmed  by,  I  believe,  all  the  versions,  ancient  and  modem, 
without  exception.  Yet,  with  this  change,  it  will  by  no  means  answer  his 
purpose ;  for  the  Hebrew  word  here  translated  "  pierced,"  in  this  place 
signifies  "  blasphemed,"  or  "  insulted,"  as  it  is  understood  by  Grotius,  who 
confirms  this  rendering  from  the  Hebrew  of  Levit.  xxiv.  11,  where  in  this 
passage  "  the  Israelitish  woman's  son  blasphemed  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
The  Hebrew  word  translated  "blasphemed"  is  from  the  same  root  with  the 
Hebrew  woi'd  translated  "pierced"  in  the  passage  in  Zechariah  quoted  above. 
So  that  the  passage  ought  to  be  translated  thus: — "I  will  pour  upon  the 
house  of  David,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  sjiirit  of  grace 
and  supplications,  and  they  shall  look  towards  me  whom  they  have 
blasphemed."  [To  "look  towards  God"  is  a  phrase  frequently  met  with, 
and  well  understood.]  Now,  to  enable  us  to  understand  more  perfectly  this 
passage,  let  us  consider  the  context,  where  we  shall  find  that  it  states,  that 
there  was  to  be  a  war  in  Judea,  and  a  seige  of  Jerusalem,  and  then  a 
deliverance  of  the  Jews,  by  the  destruction  of  all  the  nations,  that  should 
come  up  at  that  time,  against  Jerusalem.  Immediately  after  which  matters, 
follows  the  prophecy  under  consideration — "  I  will  pour  upon  the  house  of 
David,"  &c.  Now,  from  these  things  thus  laid  together,  I  crave  leave  to 
argue  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Sykes  [Essay,  &c.,  p.  268] — "Did  any  one 
circimxstance  of  all  this  happen  to  the  Jews  about  the  time  of  the  death  of 
Jesus  ?  Or  rather,  was  not  every  thing  the  reverse  of  what  Zechariah  says  ; 
and  instead  of  all  nations  being  destroyed  that  came  about  Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem  itself  was  destroyed :  instead  of  a  spirit  of  grace  and  supplications, 
the  Jews  have  had  their  hearts  hardened  against  the  Christ ;  instead  of 
mourning  for  him  whom  they  have  pierced,  they  condemn  him  and  his 
followers  even  until  this  day." 

But  it  is  tiresome  thus  to  waste  time  in  proving  that  part§  and  ends  of 
verses,  disjointed  from  their  connexion,  and  even  the  words  quoted,  some  of 
them  changed  and  some  transposed,  (though  even  done  according  to  the 
rules  given  by  the  venerable  Surenhusius)  prove  nothing.  We  must, 
therefore,  devote  the  remainder  of  this  long  chajjter  to  the  consideration  of 
the  three  famous  prophecies,  on  which  Christians  have  not  hesitated,  with 
triumphing  confidence,  to  rest  the  issue  of  their  cause.  These  are  the  pro- 
phecy of  Shiloh,  Gen.  49  ;  the  53d  ch.  of  Isaiah  ;  and  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the 
"  seventy  weeks."     I  will  consider  them  in  order,  and  thus  wind  up  the  chapter. 

I  have  some  where  read  in  a  catechism,  the  following  question  and 
answer : — Q.  "  How  can  you  confound  the  Jews,  and  prove  from  prophecy, 
that  the  Messiah  is  already  come  ?"  A.  "  From  these  two  prophecies — '  The 
sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah,'  &c. — Gen.  xlix.  ;  and  this — '  Seventy 
weeks  are  determined  upon  thy  people,'"  &c. — Dan.  ix.  24. 

But,  notwithstanding  these  overwhelming  proofs,  the  stubborn  Jews 
refuse  to  be  confounded !  on  the  contrary,  they  in  fact  laugh  at  Christians 
for  being  so  easily  imposed  upon. 

The  prophecy  concerning  Shiloh,  the  Jews  acknowledge,  refers  to  their 
Messiah.  But  they  do  not  allow  that  it  defines  or  limits  the  time  of  his  coming. 
D 


26 

And  that  it  in  fact  does  not,  will  be  perfectly  evident  to  all  who  will  look 
at  the  place  in  the  Hebrew  bible,  which  they  will  find  pointed  to  read  not 
— "  The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah,  and  a  lawgiver  from  between 
his  feet,  until  Shiloh  come,"  &c.  ;  but  thus — "  The  sceptre  shall  not  depai-t 
from  Judah,  nor  a  lawgiver  from  between  his  {eet,Jbr  ever ;  for  Shiloh  shall 
come,  and  to  him  shall  the  gathering  of  the  people  be."  So  that  tho 
prophecy  does  not  intimate  that  the  Messiah  should  come  before  the  sceptro 
be  departed  from  Judah  ;  but  that  it  should  not  depart  for  ever,  but  shall  bo 
restored  when  Shiloh  comes.  This  is  the  plain  and  obvious  sense  of  the 
prophecy ;  and,  moreover,  is  tho  only  one  that  is  consistent  with  historical 
fact.  For,  in  truth,  the  sceptre  had  departed  from  Judah  several  hundred 
years  before  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  born.  For  from  the  time  of  the 
Babylonish  captivity  "  Judah"  has  never  been  free,  but  in  subjection  to  tho 
Persians,  the  Syrians,  the  Romans,  and  all  the  world. 

If  my  readers  desire  fui'ther  satisfaction  with  regard  to  this  interpre- 
tation of  this  famous  prophecy,  I  refer  them  to  the  dispute  upon  this  subject 
between  the  celebrated  Rittangelius,  and  a  learned  Jew,  (preserved  in 
Wagenseils'  '•'  Tela  Ljnea,")  where  he  will  find  Rittangelius  first  amicably 
inviting  the  Hebrew  to  discuss  the  point,  who  does  so  most  ably  and 
respectfully  toward  his  Christian  antagonist,-  and  unanswerably  establishes 
the  interpretation  above  stated,  by  the  laws  of  the  Hebrew  language,  by  tho 
ancient  interpretation  of  the  Targum,  by  venerable  tradition,  and  by 
appealing  to  history.  Rittangelius  begins  his  defence  by  shuttling,  and  ends 
by  getting  into  a  passion,  and  calling  names ;  which  his  opponent,  who  is 
cool,  because  confident  of  being  able  to  establish  his  argument,  answers  by 
notifying  to  Rittangelius  his  compassion  and  contempt. 

The  next  prophecy  proposed  to  be  considered,  is  tho  celebrated 
prophecy  of  Isaiah,  consisting  of  part  of  the  52nd,  and  the  whole  of  the 
5ord,  chapter.  It  is  the  only  prophecy  which  Paley  thinks  M'orth  bringing 
forward  in  his  elaborate  defence ;  and  it  must  be  confessed,  that  if  this 
prophecy  relates  to  the  Messiah,  it  is  by  far  the  most  plausible  of  any  that 
ai'O  brought  forward  in  favour  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  merits,  therefore,  a 
thorough  discussion,  and  I  shall  endeavour  that  it  shall  be  a  candid  one. 
This  prophecy  is  quoted  by  Jesus  himself  in  Luke  xxii.  39,  and  by  Philip, 
Tvhen  he  converted  the  Eunuch,  (Acts  8,)  for  "beginning  at  this  prophecy, 
he  i^reached  unto  him  Jesus." 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  cite  the  passage  at  length,  it  being  one 
perfectly  familiar  to  every  Christian.  I  will,  then,  before  I  consider  it, 
first  premise,  that  since  it  has  been  heretofore  abundantly  made  evident, 
that  the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament  was  not  to  sutler,  and  die,  but  to 
live  and  reign,  it  is  according  to  the  rules  of  sound  criticism,  and  I  think 
sound  theology  too,  to  interpret  this  solitary  passage,  so  that  it  may  not 
contradict  very  many  others  of  a  directly  contrary  import.  Now,  if  this 
passage  can  relate  only  to  the  Messiah,  it  will  throw  into  utter  confusion 
the  whole  scheme  of  the  prophetical  scriptures.  But  if  it  can  be  made  to 
appear,  that  it  does  not  necessarily  relate  to  him  ;  if  it  can,  consistently  with 
the  context,  be  otherwise  applied,  the  whole  difficulty  vanishes.  Now,  tho 
authors  of  the  New  Testament  have  applied  this  prophecy  to  the  Messiah, 
and  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah ;  and  for  doing  so,  they  have  been  accused  of 
misapplication  of  it  from  the  earliest  times ;  since  we  know  from  Origen, 
that  tho  Jews  of  his  time  derided  the  Christians  for  relying  upon  this 
prophecy ;  alleging  that  it  related  to  their  own  nation,  and  was  a  prophecy 
of  their  suffering  and  persecuted  state,  and  of  their  ultimate  emancipation  and 
happiness.     And  this  interpretation  of  the  prophecy  the  learned  Vitringa,  in 


27 

his  commentarj'  upon  Is.  in  loc,  allows  to  be  the  most  respectable  he  had  met 
with  among  the  Jews,  and,  according  to  him,  "  to  he  by  no  means  dispised." 

In  order  that  the  fitness  or  unfitness  of  this  application  of  the  prophecy 
may  be  made  apparent,  and  evident,  we  will  now  lay  before  the  reader  this 
famous  prophecjV  part  by  pai-t,  each  part  accompanied  by  the  Jewish 
interpretation. 

Isaiah  lii.  13,  "  Behold  my  servant  shall  prosper,  he  shall  be  exalted, 
and  extolled,  and  be  very  high."  Interpretation — My  servant  Israel,  though 
he  be  in  great  affliction  for  a  time,  yet  hereafter  shall  be  released  from 
captivity,  and  be  honoured  and  raised  to  elevation  very  high  among  the 
nations  of  the  earth.  [That  the  Jewish  nation  is  spoken  of,  in  the  singular 
number  and  under  the  title  of  God's  servant  frequently  in  the  Old  Testament, 
is  well  known,  and  will  be  here  made. certain  by  a  few  examples.  Isaiah  xli. 
{the  chapter  preceding  the  prophecy,)  "  But  thou  Israel  my  servant,  thou 
Jacob,  whom  I  have  chosen,"  presently  afterwards,  "  saying  to  thee,  tJioic  art 
my  servant."  Again,  chapter  xliv. — "  Now,  therefore,  hear  Jacob  my  servant," 
and  so  frequently  in  the  same  chapter.  See  also  ch.  xlv.,  and  Jer.  ch.  xxx., 
and  Ps.  cxxxvi.,  and  Isaiah  throughout,  for  similar  examples.] 

"  And  many  were  astonished  at  thee  (his  visage  was  so  marred  more  than 
any  man,  and  his  form  more  than  the  sons  of  men.)"  That  is — And  many 
were  astonished  at  thee,  on  account  of  thy  abject  state,  and  miserable 
condition,  being  squalid  with  misery,  and  sutfering  more  than  any  men. 

"  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,  the  kings  shall  shut  their  mouths 
at  him ;  for  that  which  had  not  been  told  them,  shall  they  see,  and  that 
which  they  had  not  heard,  shall  they  consider." 

Interpretation — As  the  Gentiles  wondered  at  their  abject  state,  so  as  to 
make  them  a  proverb  of  reproach,  so  shall  they  admire  at  their  wonderful 
change  of  circumstances,  from  the  depth  of  degradation  to  the  height  of 
prosperity  and  honour.  So  that  they  shall  lay  their  hands  upon  their  mouths, 
which  had  beforotime  reproached  them,  when  they  shall  see  their  felicity  to 
be  so  far  beyond  what  had  been  told  them,  and  they  shall  attentively  consider 
it,  and  they  shall  say  to  each  other — 

"  Who  hath  believed  our  report,  and  the  arm  of  the  Lord  to  whom  was 
it  revealed?  For  he  grew  up  [Hebrew,  not  "he  shall  grow  up,"  as  in  the- 
English  version]  before  him  as  a  tender  plant,  and  as  a  root  out  of  a  dry  soil ; 
he  had  no  form  nor  comeliness ;  and  when  we  saw  him,  there  was  no  beauty 
that  we  should  desire  him." 

The  sense  is — The  Gentiles  shall  say  to  each  other  in  wonder,  "  ^Vho 
believed  what  we  heard  concerning  them  ?  And  to  whom  was  the  interest  the 
Lord  took  in  them  made  known  :  For  it  Avas  a  dispised  people,  feeble,  and 
wretched,  like  a  tender  plant  springing  up  out  of  a  thirsty  soil.  Their 
appearance  was  abject,  and  there  was  nothing  attractive  in  their  manners." 

"He  was  despised  and  rejected  of  men,  a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted 
with  grief:  and  we  hid,  as  it  were,  oui'  faces  from  him  ;  he  was  despised,  and 
we  esteemed  him  not." 

That  is — They  were  dispised,  and  held  in  abhorrence :  they  were  men 
of  sorrow,  and  familar  with  suffering.  We  looked  upon  them  with  dislike  : 
we  hid  our  faces  from  them,  and  esteemed  them  not. 

"  Surely  he  hath  borne  ooir  griefs,  and  carried  our  sorrows." 

Intepretation — Sui-ely  their  sufferings  are  as  great  as  if  they  had  borne 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world ;  or,  they  are,  nevertheless,  the  means  appointed 
to  remove  the  suft'erings  of  an  afflicted  world,  for  God  hath  connected 
universal  happiness  with  their  prosperity ;  and  the  end  of  their  suft'erings,  is 
the  beginning  of  our  joys. 

"  Yet  did  we  esteem  him  smitten  of  Ood,  and  afflicted." 


28 

Interpretation — Nevertheless,  we  considerod  them  as  a  God-ahandomd 
race,  and  devoted  to  wretchedness  by  him,  for  having  crucified  their  king. 

"  But  he  was  wounded  for  [or  hi/]  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for 
[or  by]  our  iniquities :  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him ;  and 
through  his  stripes  we  are  healed." 

■  That  is — But,  instead  of  being  the  victims  of  God's  wrath,  they  were 
wounded  through  our  cruelty,  they  were  bruised  by  our  iniquitous  treatment, 
we  being  suffered  to  do  so,  to  chastise  them  for  their  sins,  and  to  prove  their 
obedience  ;  and  this  chastisement  is  that  by  which  our  peace  is  to  be  effected; 
for  their  chastisement  and  probation  being  finished,  God  will  by  them  impart 
and  diffuse  peace  and  happiness. 

"  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray,  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his 
own  way,  and  the  Lord  hath  caused  to  meet  upon  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all." 

But  it  is  we  who  have  sinned  more  than  they  :  we  have  all  gone  astray 
in  our  ignorance,  being  without  the  knowledge  of  God,  or  of  his  law.  Yet  the 
Lord  hath  permitted  us  to  make  them  the  subjects  of  our  oppressive  iniquity. 

"  He  was  oiipresscd,  [or  "  exposed  to  pecuniary/  ea;actipns"]  and  he  was 
afflicted,  yet  he  opened  not  his  mouth :  he  was  brought  as  a  lamb  to  tho 
slaughter ;  and  as  a  sheep  before  her  shearers  is  dumb,  so  he  opened  not  his 
mouth.  He  was  taken  from  prison  and  from  judgment,  and  who  shall  declare 
his  generation,  ["  into  his  manner  of  life,  who  stoopeth  to  look  ?"  according 
to  the  Hebrew]  for  he  was  cut  off  out  of  the  land  of  the  living  ;  for  [or  by] 
the  transgression  of  my  people  was  he  stricken.  And  he  made  his  grave  with 
the  wicked ;  but  with  the  rich  were  his  deaths,  [or  tomb]  because  he  had 
done  no  violence,  neither  was  deceit  in  his  mouth." 

Interpretation — How  j^assive  and  unresisting  were  they,  when  oppressed ! 
— They  were  afflicted,  and  they  complained  not;  when  through  false 
accusations,  and  mistaken  cruelty  they  were  plundered,  and  condemned  to 
die,  they  went  like  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  as  a  sheep  before  her 
shearers  is  dumb,  so  they  opened  not  their  mouth.  They  were  taken  from 
the  dungeon  to  be  slain,  they  were  wantonly  massacred,  and  every  man  was 
their  foe ;  and  the  cause  of  the  sufferers  who  condescended  to  examine  ;  for 
by  the  thoughtless  crimes  of  my  people,  they  suffered.  Yet  notwithstanding 
their  graves  were  appointed  with  the  wicked ;  yet  they  were  rich  in  their 
deaths.     This  did  God  grant  thein,  because  they  had  not  done  iniquity. 

Rabbi  Isaac,  author  of  the  famous  Munimen  Fidei,*  renders  the  original 
— "  on  account  of  impieties  was  he  given  to  his  sepulchre,  and  on  account  of 
his  riches  was  his  death,  because  he  did  no  violence,  neither  was  deceit  in 
his  mouth" — which  he  interprets  thus  : — We  (the  former  speakers)  raised 
against  them  false  accusations  of  impiety,  on  account  of  their  religion,  and 
refusing  to  worship  our  idols  ;  but  their  riches  was  the  real  cause  why  we 
put  them  to  death.  Nevertheless,  they  used  no  violence  in  opposition  to  our 
oppressions,  neither  would  they  forsake  their  religion,  and  deceitfully  assent 
to  ours  in  hypocrisy. t 

"  Yet  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him :  he  hath  put  him  to  grief. 
When  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  a  propitiation  for  sin,  he  shall  see  his  seed, 
he  shall  prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall  prosper  in  his 
hands."  [This  proves  that  this  prophecy  cannot  refer  to  any  individual,  but 
may  refer  to  the  Jewish  nation,  because  one  individual  cannot  be  put  to 
death,  and  yet  "see  his  seed,"    and  "prolong  his  days."]t    "After  [or  on 

*  There  exists  an  English  translation  of  this  work  by  Abraham  de  Sola D. 

f  The  person  here  spoken  of  by  Isaiah  is  said  to  make  his  grave  with  the  wicked, 
and  be  with  the  rich  in  his  death.  Whereas  Jesus  did  exactly  the  contrary.  He  was 
with  the  wicked  (i.  e.,  the  two  thieves)  in  his  death,  and  with  the  rich  (i.  e.,  Joseph  of 
Arimathea)  in  his  grave,  or  tomb.     In  the  original,  the  words  may  be  translated  that 


29 

account  of]  the  travail  of  his  soul,  seeing  he  shall  be  satisfied,  by  his 
knowledge  shall  my  righteous  servant  make  many  righteous  [or  show  them 
righteousness,]  and  he  shall  bear  the  burden  of  their  iniquities." 

That  is — After  and  for  their  sufferings,  they  shall  be  abundantly 
rewarded ;  by  their  superior  knowledge  of  religious  truth,  shall  they  make 
many  wise,  "  for  many  nations  shall  go,  and  say,  come  ye,  and  let  us  ascend 
to  the  mount  of  the  Lord,  and  to  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob,  that  he 
may  teach  us  his  ways" — Mic.  iv.  ch.  • 

'•'Wherefore,  I  will  give  him  a  portion  with  the  great,  and  with  the 
mighty  shall  he  divide  the  spoil,  because  he  poured  out  his  life  unto  death, 
and  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors,  and  himself  bear  the  sin  of  many, 
and  interceded  for  the  transgressors." 

Interpretation — Therefore,  their  reward  shall  be  exceeding  great,  because 
for  the  sake  of  their  duty,  they  willingly  exposed  themselves  to  death,  and 
were  accounted  as  transgressors,  and  bore  the  ci-uel  afflictions  inflicted  by 
many,  and  made  intercession  for  them  who  afflicted  them. 

Such  is  the  explication  given  by  the  Jews  of  this  prophecy.  I  have 
made  no  important  alterations  of  the  common  English  translation  ;  except, 
that  in  some  passages,  I  have  made  it  more  conformable  to  the  oi'iginal  by 
substituting  a  verb  in  the  past  tense,  instead  of  leaving  it  in  the  future,  as  ia 
the  English  version.  Those  translators  have  taken  certain  liberties  in  this 
respect  to  make  this  prophecy  (and  several  others)  more  accordant  to  their 
own  views,  which  are  not  supported  by  the  Hebrew :  many  of  these 
expressions,  hoAvever,  we  have  left  unaltered,  as  they  are  quite  harmless. 
But  if  any  of  our  readers  desire  further  information  with  regard  to  the 
propriety  of  this  interpretation  of  this  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  we  refer  him  to 
the  "  Munimen  Fidei,"  contained  in  Wagcnseil's  "Telalgnea"  where  he  will 
find  it  amply  illustrated,  and  defended.  Here,  in  this  work,  we  shall 
content  ourselves  with  proving,  that  this  prophecy  can  by  no  means  relate 
to  Jesus,  frOm  these  circumstances : — 1.  Jesus  certainly  was  not  exalted  and 
magnified,  and  made  very  great  upon  earth,  which,  as  has  been  shown,  was  to 
be  the  scene  of  the  exaltation  of  the  Old  Testament  Messiah ;  but  was  put  to 
a  cruel  and  disgraceful  death.  2.  He  was  not  oppressed  hy  pecuniary 
exactions,  as  is  sai^  of  the  subject  of  this  prophecy.  3.  He  was  never  taken 
from  prison  to  die,  for  he  was  never  in  one.  4.  He  did  not  "see  his  seed," 
nor  "  prolong  his  days,"  since  he  died  childless ;  and  we  will  not  permit  the 
word  "  seed"  to  be  spiritualized  on  this  occasion,  for  the  word  "  seed"  in  the 
Old  Testament,  means  nothing  else  than  literally  "  children,"  which  it  is  not 
pretended  he  ever  had ;  and  how  could  he  "  prolong  his  days,"  when  he  was 
cut  off  in  his  33d  year.  5.  Besides,  who  were  "  the  strong  and  mighty," 
■with  whom  he  divided  the  spoil  ?  Were  they  the  twelve  fishermen  of  Galilee  ? 
and  what  was  the  spoil  divided  ?  In  a  word,  the  literal  application  of  this 
prophecy  to  Jesus  is  now  given  up  by  the  most  learned  Hebrew  scholars,  who 
allow,  that  the  literal  sense  of  the  original  can  never  be  understood  of  him. 

*'  he  shall  avenj^e,  or  recompence  upon  the  wicked  his  grave,  and  his  death  upon  the 
rich."  Thus  does  the  Targum  and  the  Arabic  version  interpret  the  place;  and 
Ezekiel  ix.  10,  uses  the  verb  in  the  verse  in  Isaiah  under  consideration  translated  (in 
the  English  version)—"  He  made,"  &c— in  the  same  sense,  given  to  this  place  in 
Isaiah,  by  the  Targum,  and  the  Arabic,  as  said  above.  See  the  place  in  Ezekiel,  where 
it  is  translated — "  I  will  recompence  their  way  upon  their  head."  See  also  Deut.  xxi. 
8,  in  the  original.  The  Syriac  has  it — "  The  wicked  contributed  to  his  burial,  and  the 
rich  to  his  death."  The  Arabic—"  I  will  punish  the  wicked  for  his  burial,  and  the 
rich  for  his  death  "  The  Targum—"  He  shall  send  the  wicked  into  hell,  and  the  rich 
who  put  him  to  a  cruel  death." — E. 


30 

[Seo  Priestley's  notes  on  the  scriptures,  in  loco ;  and  the  context  before  and 
after.] 

Wc  have  now  come  to  the  last  subject  proposed  to  be  considered  in  this 
chapter,  viz.,  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  seventy  weeks,  the  *' instar  omnium" 
of  the  prophetical  proofs  of  Christianity,  and  which  was  for  ages  held  up  to 
the  view  of  "  the  unbelieving  race,"  as  cutting  off  beyond  doubt  their  "  hope 
of  Israel"  ^om  ever  appearing,  since  the  time  so  distinctly  foretold  had 
elapsed.  But  such  is  the  instability  of  human  opinions,  that  it  was  at  length 
suspected,  and  at  last  ascertained  by  the  learned,  that  "the  stubborn 
Israelites"  had  some  reason  for  denying  that  propliecy,  any  voice  in  the 
affair. 

During  many  years,  one  learned  man  after  another,  had  .amused  himself 
with  destroying  the  system  of  his  predecessor,  and  replacing  it  with  his  own, 
not  a  whit  better,  but  tending  to  the  same  end,  viz.,  to  make  the  prophecy 
of  the  seventy  weeks  tally  and  fit  with  the  event  of  the  crucifixion.  At  length 
Marsham,  a  learned  Englishman,  declared,  and  demonstrated,  that  his 
predecessors,  in  this  enquiry,  had  been  gi'ossly  mistaken,  for  that  the 
prophecy  in  all  its  parts  was  totally  irrelevant  and  irreconcileable  with  the 
time  of  the  crucifixion.  The  appearance  of  his  book  put  all  the  theologians 
of  that  age  in  an  uproar !  But  many  learned  Christians  in  the  last,  and 
present,  century,  now  freely  acknowledge,  that  Daniel  is  not  on  their  side, 
but  as  much  a  Jew  as  his  brethren. 

This  celebrated  prophecy,  literally  translated  from  the  original,  is  as 
follows: — Dan.  ix.  24,  &c. — "  Seventy  weeks  are  determined  upon  thy  people, 
and  upon  thy  holy  city,  to  finish  the  transgression,  and  to  make  an  end  of 
sins,  and  to  make  reconciliation  for  iniquity,  and  to  bring  in  everlasting 
righteousness,  and  to  seal  the  vision  and  prophecy,  and  to  anoint  the  most 
Holy,  [i.  e.,  the  sanctum  sanctorum,  or  Holy  of  Holies.]  Know,  therefore, 
and  understand,  that  from  the  going  forth  of  the  word  to  restore  and  build 
Jerusalem,  unto  the  anointed  prince,  shall  be  seven  weeks ;  and  (in) 
threescore  and  two  weeks,  the  street  shall  be  built  agaiuj  and  the  wall,  even 
in  troublous  times.  And  after  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  the  anointed 
(one)  be  cut  off,  and  be  without  a  successor ;  (Heb.  i'  and  not,  or  none  to 
liim")  and  the  city  and  the  sanctuary  shall  be  destroyed*  by  the  people  of  the 
prince  that  shall  come  ;  and  the  end  thereof  shall  be  with  a  flood,  and  unto 
the  end  of  the  war  desolations  are  determined.  And  he  shall  confirm  tho 
covenant  with  many  for  one  week,  and  half  the  week  (i.  e.,  in  the  midst  of 
the  week)  he  shall  cause  the  sacrifice  and  the  oblation  to  cease,  and  for  the 
overspreading  of  abominations  he  shall  make  it  desolate,  even  until  tho 
consummation,  and  that  (is)  determined,  be  poured  upon  the  desolate." 

This  is  the  prophecy  on  which  such  stress  has  been  laid,  as  pointing  out 
the  precise  time  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah ;  and  I  shall  fully  demonstrate 
that  it  hath  not  the  most  distant  reference  to  that  event.  And  for  the  better 
explanation  of  the  prophecy,  it  is  proper  that  we  attend  a  little  to  the 
context. 

t  In  the  preceding  chapter  of  Daniel  it  is  said,  that  when  Daniel  was 
informed  of  the  vision  of  the  two  thousand  and  three  hundred  days,  he  sought 
for  the  meaning  ;  but  not  rightly  understanding  it,  he  judged,  that  that  great 
number  was  a  contradiction  to  the  word  of  God  as  dehvcred  by  Jeremiah, 
concerning  the  redemption  at  the  end  of  seventy  years;  (Jer.  xxv.  11,12, 
and  ch.  xxix.  10)  and  from  thence  he  concluded  that  the  captivity  was 
prolonged  on  account  of  the  sins  of  the  nation.     This  doubt  arose  from  his 

*  Or,  shall  destroy. — D. 

f  The  remainder  of  this  chapter  is  taken  from  Levi  and  Wagenseil. — E. 


31 

not  understanding  the  prophecy,  and,  therefore,  the  angel  said  unto  him, — 
"I  am  now  come  forth  to  give  thee  skill  and  understanding."  And  he 
proceeds  to  inform  him,  that  as  soon  as  he  hegan  to  pray,  and  God  saw  his 
perplexity,  the  royal  command  went  foi'th  from  him,  that  he  should  come  to 
Daniel  to  make  him  understand  the  truth  of  those  matters,  that  were  to  come 
to  pass  in  future  time.  And  as  the  angel  Gabriel  had  explained  to  him  the 
vision  from  whence  his  doubt  arose,  it  was  incumbent  on  liim  to  pei-fect  the 
explanation;  and  that  is  what  is  meant  by  the  expression  "to  show,"  i.  e., 
as  I  began  the  explanation,  the  commandment  was,  that  I  should  finish  it. 

Before  I  proceed  to  give  the  Jewish  explanation  of  the  prophecy,  it  is 
proper  to  show  in  what  manner  the  answer  of  the  angel  in  it,  agi-eed  to 
Daniel's  question,  and  also  the  reason  of  his  using  the  term  weeks,  aud  not 
years,  or  times,  as  in  the  other  visions. 

It  appears,  that  Daniel,  from  the  words  of  Jeremiah,  perceived  that  God 
■would  visit  all  the  nations,  and  punish  them  for  their  sins,  as  may  be 
observed  from  the  following  words: — "Thus  saith  the  Loi"d  God  of  Israel 
unto  me.  Take  the  wine  cup  of  this  fury  at  my  hand,  and  cause  all  the 
nations  to  whom  I  send  thee,  to  drink  it" — Jer.  xxv.  15.  -He  then  mentions 
fii'st  Jerusalem,  afterwai'ds  the  king  of  Egypt,  Tyre,  Sidon,  and  all  the  Isles 
"beyond  the  sea,  and  many  others ;  and  at  last  the  king  of  Sheshak,  or 
Babylon. 

He  also  further  perceived,  that  the  visitation  of  each  nation  would  be 
at  the  end  of  seventy  years,  as  Isaiah  observes  of  Tyre :  "  And  it  shall  come  to 
pass  in  that  day,  that  Tyre  shall  be  forgotten  scventij  years."  Isaiah  xxiii.  15, 
the  same  of  Babylon :  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  seventy  years  are 
accomplished,  I  will  punish  the  king  of  Babylon."  Jer.  xxv.  12,  And  as  it  is 
observed  in  the  next  verse :  '•'  All  that  is  written  in  this  book  which  Jeremiah 
hath  prophecied,  against  all  tlie  nations."  From  whence  it  appears,  that  as 
the  visitation  of  Babylon  was  to  be  seventy  years,  so  was  that  of  the  other 
nations  to  be  ;  for  so  had  the  wisdom  of  God  decreed  to  wait  according  to  this 
number.  For  which  reason,  and  because  the  prophets  say  that  the 
restoration  of  Israel  is  to  be  contemporaneous  with  the  destruction  of  their 
enemies,  Daniel  appears  to  have  judged,  that  the  sins  of  his  nation  would  be 
done  away  by  the  seventy  years  of  the  captivity  of  Babylon ;  and,  therefore, 
the  angel  informed  him  of  his  error,  by  telling  him,  that  this  was  not  to  be 
the  case  with  his  nation,  for  that  their  wickedness  was  come  up  before  God, 
and  their  sin  was  very  gi'ievous ;  and  that,  therefore,  their  sins  would  not 
be  atoned  for  by  seventy  years,  as  in  the  case  of  the  rest  of  the  nations,  to 
whom  he  allowed  seventy  years  to  see  if  they  would  repent;  and  if  not,  then 
he  would  punish  them.  But  as  for  Israel,  he  would  not  only  wait  seventy 
years,  hni  seven  times  seventy  years ;  (for  thus  it  is  literally,  in  the  Hebrew, 
the  words  translated  "seventy  weeks,"  are,  literally,  " seventy  sevens")  after 
which,  if  they  had  not  repented  and  reformed,  their  kingdom  should  be  cut 
off,  and  they  return  into  captivity,  to  finish  an  atonement  for  their  trans- 
gressions. Hence  the  caitse  of  Daniel's  question  is  evident ;  and  the  propriety 
of  the  angel's  answer  to  the  question,  is  manifest ;  as  also  the  expression  of 
weeks  or  sevens. 

These  seventy  weeks  are,  without  doubt,ybMr  hundred  and  ninety  years, 
the  time  elapsed  from  the  destruction  of  the  first  temple,  till  the  destruction 
of  the  second. 

This,  it  seems,  was  the  more  necessary  for  the  angel  to  inform  him  of; 
because  Daniel  judged,  that  after  their  return  from  Babylon,  by  means  of 
that  visitation  only,  all  their  sins  would  be  done  away.  For  which  reason 
the  angel  showed  him  that  it  would  not  be  so,  [for  the  return  from  Babylon 
was  not  a  perfect  redemption,  because  there  was  not  a  gemral  collection  of  all 


32 

that  were  in  captivity,  even  all  the  tribes,  save  only  a  few  of  Judali  and 
Benjamin,  and  those  not  the  most  respectable.  And  after  their  return,  they 
were  not  free,  hut  were  under  the  dominion  of  tlie  Persians,  Greeks  and 
Romans.  And  although  they,  at  one  time,  threw  off  their  yoke,  and  had 
kings  of  the  Asmonean  and  Herodean  families,  yet  was  there  no  king  among 
them  of  the  seed  of  David,  neither  had  they  the  Sheohinah,  nor  the  Urim 
and  Thummim,  all  which  is  a  manifestation  that  it  was  not  a  perfect 
redemption,  but  only  a  visitation,  with  which  God  was  pleased  to  visit  them; 
so  that  they  were  allowed  to  build  a  temple  to  the  Lord,  by  the  permission 
of  Cyrus,  and  according  to  the  measure  given  by  him.  This  was  that  they 
might  be  the  better  enabled  to  do  the  works  of  repentance  during  the  time 
allowed,  and  thus  "  make  atonement,  and  thus  finish  the  transgression,  and 
make  an  end  of  sins,  and  make  reconciliation  for  iniquity  ;"  an4  thus,  at  the 
end  of  the  time  assigned,  even  "  seventy  weeks,"  they  would  bring  in 
"everlasting  righteousness,"  i.  e.,  universal  virtue  and  felicity,  throughout 
the  world,  when  the  Eternal  should  be  known,  worshipped,  and  obeyed  by  all 
mankind.  But  if  they  did  not  repent,  and  amend,  if  they  did  evil,  as  their 
fathers,  then  their  kingdom  was  to  be  cut  otf  at  the  expiration  of  the  seventy 
weeks;  which,  in  fact,  took  place.] 

After  the  angel  had  thus  expressed  himself  in  general  terms,  he  descended 
to  particulars ;  and  laid  down  three  propositions  (if  I  may  be  allowed  the 
term,)  or  periods. 

First.  "  Know,  therefore,  and  understand,  (that)  from  the  going  forth 
of  the  word  to  restore  and  build  Jerusalem,  unto  the  anointed  prince,  (shall 
be)  seven  weeks." 

That  is,  it  shall  be  seven  weeks  or  forty-nine  years  from  the  destructibn 
of  the  first  temple,  to  Cyrus,  "  the  anointed  prince,"  who  shall  give  leave  to 
build  the  second.  [With  regard  to  the  import  of  the  phrase  "the  going 
forth  of  the  word,"  I  refer  the  reader  to  Levi's  Letters  to  Priestley,  and 
shall  here  only  concern  myself  with  settling  the  meaning  of  the  expression 
of  "  the  anointed  prince."]  Many  Christians  have  objected  to  the  term 
Messiah,  or  anointed,  being  applied,  as  in  our  interpretation  to  Cyrus  a 
heathen  prince ;  and  they  apply  it  themselves  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  But 
that  the  term,  or  a25pellation,  Messiah,  can  be  applied  to  Cyrus,  is  evident ; 
since  we  find  it  so  applied  by  God  himself  in  the  xlv.  ch.  of  Isaiah.  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  to  his  anointed,  to  C'l/rns.  2.  It  is  a  singulai-  fact,  that  the 
appellation  "  Messiah"  is  never  applied  to  the  expected  deliverer  of  the 
Israelites  in  the  whole  bible,  except,  perhaps,  tn  ii.  Psalm.  It  is  an 
ai>pellation  indifferently  applied  to  kings,  and  priests,  and  propliets ;  to  all 
who  were  anointed,  as  an  induction  into  their  office,  and  has  nothing  in  it 
peculiar  and  exclusive ;  but  the  application  of  it  to  the  expected  deliverer  of 
Israel,  originated  in  and  from  the  Tai'gums.  3.  In  order  to  make  this 
prophecy,  and  this  phrase,  "  Messiah  the  prince,"  or  "  the  anointed  prince," 
apply  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  Christians  connect,  and  join  together,  this  first 
member  of  the  prophecy  with  the  second,  in  open  defiance  of  the  original 
Hebrew ;  and  after  all,  they  can  reap  no  benefit  from  this  manoeuvre ;  for 
the  term  "  Messiah  Nagid,"  or  "  the  anointed  prince,"  can  never  apply  to 
Jesus,  in  this  place,  at  any  rate ;  because  he  certainly  was  no  prince  6r 
"  Nagid,"  a  word  which  in  the  Hebrew  bible  always,  without  eicception,  denotes 
a  prince,  or  ruler,  one  invested  with  temporal  authority,  or  supreme  command. 
Now,  as  it  is  allowed  on  all  hands,  that  Jesus  had  no  such  temporal  power, 
as  a  prince,  or  ruler ;  it,  consequently,  follows,  that  he  •an  by  no  means  bo 
the  "  anointed  prince"  mentioned  in  the  prophecy. 

Second  Period.  "  And  (in)  threescore  and  two  weeks,  the  street  shall 
be  built  again,  and  the  wall,  even  in  troublous  times." 


33 

Here  the  angel  gave  him  to  understand,  that  after  the  seven  weeks 
before  mentioned,  there  vs^ould  come  a  time  in  which  the  building  would  be 
hindered,  (and  which  was  on  account  of  the  letter  written  by  Rheum  and 
Shimshai  to  Artaxerxes,  who,  in  consequence  thereof,  made  the  building  to 
cease — See  Ezra  and  Nehemiah)  till  the  second  year  of  Darius,  who  gave 
leave  to  finish  the  building:  which  continued  till  the  destruction  by  the 
Romans,  sixty-two  weeks,  beside  the  last  week,  at  the  beginning  of  which,  the 
Romans  came,  and  warred  against  them,  and  at  length  entirely  destroyed 
the  cities  of  Judah,  Jerusalem,  and  the  temple.  For,  from  the  time  that 
Cyrus  first  gave  leave  to  build  the  temple,  till  its  completion,  was  twenty-one 
years  ;  and  its  duration,  four  hundred  and  twenty ;  in  the  whole,  sixty-three 
weeks,  or  four  hundred  and  forty  one  years.  But  the  angel  made  bis 
division  at  sixty-two  Aveeks,  as  he  afterwards  described  what  was  to  come  to 
pass  in  the  last  week  (and  with  reason,  for  the  horrible  Jewish  war  lasted 
seven  years!)  And  by  the  Avords,  '"'in  troublous  times,"  he  informed  Daniel, 
that  during  the  building  of  the  temple,  they  would  have  continual  trouble 
and  alarms  from  their  enemies,  as  is  mentioned  in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  where 
we  find,  that  while  some  worked,  the  others  held  the  shield  and  spear.  And 
even  after  finishing  it,  they  were  almost  continually  in  trouble,  and  perse- 
cuted, as  is  evident  from  the  books  of  Maccabees,  and  from  Josephus. 

Third  Period.  "  And  after  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  the  anointed 
be  cut  off,  and  have  no  successor— [Heb.  "and  not, or, none,  to  him"]-r-and  the 
city  and  the  sanctuary  shall  be  destroyed  by  the  people  of  the  prince  that 
shall  come ;  and  the  end  thereof  shall  be  with  a  flood,  and  unto  the  end  of 
the  war  desolations  are  determined." 

That  is,  and  after  that  period,  shall  the  High  Priest  (or  "  the  anointed 
one")  be  cut  off— [The  High  Priest  is  called  "  Messiah,"  witness  Lev.  iv.  3 
— "  If  the  Messiah  Priest,  (or  anointed  priest)  doth  sin,"  &c.] — and  have  no 
successor ;  and  the  city  and  the  temple  shall  be  destroyed  by  Titus  and  the 
Romans,  and  until  the  end  of  the  war,  your  country  shall  be  swept  with  the 
besom  of  destruction. 

The  angel  finishes  the  prophecy  with  these  words : — '•'  And  he  (the 
prince  that  shall  come)  shall  strengthen  the  covenant  with  many,  for  one 
week.  And  in  the  midst  of  the  week  (i.  e.,  the  seventieth  and  last  weei,) 
he  shall  cause  the  sacrifice  and  the  oblation  to  cease." 

This  prediction  was  fully  accomplished;  for  1.  Titus,  " the  prince  that 
should  come,"  was  continually  offering  peace  to  the  Jews,  and  tried  to 
"  strengthen  the  covenant" — i.  e.,  their  old  treaties  made  with  the  Romans, 
and  in  fact  did  bring  over  many.  2.  On  account  of  the  distress  of  the  siege, 
the  daily  sacrifice  did  in  fact  cease  to  be  off'ered  in  the  temple  some  time 
before  its  destruction ;  and  the  angel  further  observes,  that  all  this  was  to 
come  upon  them  for  their  sins,  "  for  the  overspreading  of  abominations,  it 
should  be  made  desolate." 

This  is  what  appears  to  be  a  plain  and  fair  explication  of  this  prophecy; 
but  since  Christians,  seeing  mention  made  in  it  of  a  Messiah  to  be  cut  off, 
have  eagerly  endeavoured  to  press  it  into  their  service,  it  remains  for  me  to 
show,  that  it  is  impossible  to  make  this  prophecy  refer  to  "  the  cutting  off" 
of  Jesus. 

The  difiiculty  that  learned  Christians  have  met  with,  in  their  attempts  to 
do  this,  will  be  easily  conceived  by  any  person,  when  he  knows,  that  more  than 
a  dozen  different  hypotheses  have  been  framed  by  them  for  that  purpose ; 
but  that  they  have  lost  their  labour,  will  be  obvious  from  this  single 
observation,  that  "  the  anointed  one,  or  Messiah,"  who,  the  prophet  says,  was 
to  be  "  cut  off,"  was  to  be  cut  off  "  after  the  threescore  and  two  weeks," 
i.  e.,  at  the  destrwtion  of  Jerusalem,  or  within  the  seven  years  preceding  thicCt 


34 

ewnt !  Now,  we  know  from  the  Evangelists,  and  from  profane  hiistory,  that 
Jesus  was  crucified  more  than  forty  years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
In  addition  to  this,  nothing  need  be  said,  for  this  circumstance  lays  flat  their 
interpretation  at  one  stroke. 

Those  who  desire  to  see  a  more  elaborate  discussion  of  this  prophecy^ 
and  an  ample  defence  of  this  interpretation,  are  referred  to  "  Levi's  Letters, 
to  Priestly  ;"  and  those  who  are  desirous  of  seeing  an  account  of  the  various, 
contradictory,  perplexed  and  multitudinous  contrivances,  by  which  it  has 
been  endeavoured  to  apply  this  prophecy  to  Jesus,  are  referred  to  Prideaux, 
Michsclis,  and  Blayney. 

We  have  now  gone  through  an  examination  of  the  evidence  adduced 
from  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah 
of  the  Old  Testament;  and  those  of  our  readers  who  love  truth,  are,  w« 
trust,  now  made  sensible  that  the  religion  of  the  New  Testament,  if  built 
upon  such  proofs  as  these,  is,  evidently,  founded  on — a  mistake. 

CHAPTER    VIII. 

STATEMENT    OF    ARGUMENTS    WHICH    PROVE    THAT   JESUS    WAS   NOT   THE   MESSIAH    OF   THE 

OLD    TESTAMENT. 

Many  of  our  readers  have,  no  doubt,  heard  from  the  pulpit  many 
exclamations  and  declamations  against  the  "  blindness  of  the  Jews,"  in  not 
recognizing  their  Messiah  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  The  reasons  of  this 
"  blindness"  are  made,  I  think,  by  this  time  pretty  intelligible. 

Nevertheless,  for  the  further  satisfaction  of  the  I'eader,  I  will  here  set 
down  the  principal  reasons  given  by  Rabbi  Isaac,  in  his  "  Munimen  Fidei," 
which  cause  the  Jews  to  deny  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus. 

"  At  a  certain  time,  (says  he,)  a  certain  learned  man  of  the  wise  men  of 
the  Christians  said  unto  me : — '  Wherefore  are  you  Jews  unwilling  to  believe 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  to  be  the  Messiah,  when  yet  your  veritable  prophets 
testified  of  him,  whose  words  you  profess  to  have  faith  in.' 

"  I  gave  him  this  answer.  '  How,  I  require,  could  we  believe  him  to  he 
^e  Messiah,  when  you  can  produce  no  genuine  proof  from  the  prophets  in 
his  favour,  since  all  those  things  adduced  by  the  evangelists  from  them,  to 
prove  Jesus  the  Messiah,  are  nothing  to  the  purpose  ?  And  we  have  many 
and  evident  reasons  to  prove  that  he  was  not  the  Messiah.  And  of  these,  I 
will  bring  forward  a  few,  arising,  1.  From  his  genealogy.  2.  From  his 
works.  3.  From  the  time  of  his  appearing.  4.  From  the  prophecies  of  the 
things  to  take  place  in  the  time  of  the  Messiah  not  having  been  fulfilled  in  his 
age.  And  in  these  things  are  contained  the  genuine  marks  characteristic 
of  our  Messiah.' 

"1.  As  to  what  concerns  his  genealogy;  it  does  not  prove  this  necessary 
thing,  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  David,  because  he  was  not  begotten  by 
Joseph,  as  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  testifies  ;  for  in  the  first  chapter  of  it,  it  is 
written,  that  Jesus  was  born  of  Mary  when  she  was  yet  a  virgin,  and  had  not 
been  known  by  Joseph  ;  which  things  being  so,  the  genealogy  of  Joseph  has 
nothing  to  do  with  Jesus.  The  descent  and  origin  of  Mary,  is  still  less 
known,  but  it  seems  from  Luke's  calling  Elizabeth,  who  was  of  Levi,  her 
cousin,  that  Mary  was  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  not  of  Judah,  and,  conse- 
quently, not  of  David ;  and,  if  she  were,  still  Jesus  is  not  the  more  the  son 
of  David;  descents  being  reckoned  from  the  males  only.  Neither  is  the 
genealogy  of  Joseph  rightly  deduced  from  David,  but  labours  under  great 
difficulties.  Matthew,  and  Luke  also,  not  only  disagree,  but  irreconcilably 
and  fatly  contradict  each  other,  in  their  genealogies  of  Joseph.    Now,  it 


1 


35 

cannot  be  that  the  testimony  of  two  witnesses,  who  directly  contradict  each 
other  in  the  matter  to  he  proved  by  them,  can  be  I'eceived  as  true.  But  the  pro- 
phets have  directed  us  to  expect  no  Messiah  but  one  born  of  the  seed  of  David. 

"2.  As  to  the  works  of  Jesus,  we  object  to  what  he  said  concerning 
himself: — 'Do  not  consider  me  as  come  to  establish  peace  on  earth,  for  I 
have  come  to  send  a  sword,  and  to  separate  the  son  from  the  father,  and  the 
daughter  from  her  mother,  and  the  daughter-in-law  from  her  mother-in-law,* 
which  words  are  written  in  Mat.  ch.  x.  But  we  find  the  prophecies  con- 
cerning the  Messiah  to  attribute  to  him  very  different  works  from  these ; 
nay,  the  very  opposite.  For,  whereas  Jesus  testifies  concei*ning  himself,  that 
he  did  not  come  to  establish  peace  in  the  earth,  but  '  division,'  '  fire,'  and 
•sword,'  Zechariah  says,  concerning  the  expected  Messiah,  ch.  ix.  :-r-'He 
shall  speak  peace  to  the  nations.'  Jesus  says  he  came  to  send  'fire  and  sword' 
upon  the  earth,  but  Micah  says,  ch.  ii.,  that  in  the  times  of  the  true  Messiah 
'  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares,  -and  their  spears  into  pruning 
hooks,  nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they 
learn  war  any  more.'  Jesus  says  that  he  came  '  to  put  division  between  the 
father  and  the  son,'  &c.  But  in  the  time  of  the  true  Messiah,  Elias,  the 
prophet,  shall  come,  of  whom  Malachi  prophecied  '  that  he  shall  convert  the 
heart  of  the  fathers  unto  the  children,  and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  the 
fathers.'  Jesus  says  '  that  he  came  to  serve  others,  not  to  be  served  by 
them' — Mat.  xx.  28.  But  of  the  true  Messiah  it  is  said.  Psalm  Ixxii. : — '  All 
kings  shall  bow  themselves  before  him,  all  nations  shall  serve  him.'  The 
same  also  is  said  by  Zechariah,  ch.  ix.  : — '  His  dominion  shall  be,  from  one 
sea  to  the  other,  and  from  the  river  mito  the  ends  of  the  earth ;'  and  so 
Dan.,  ch.  vii. : — 'AH  dominions  shall  serve  and  obey  him.' 

"  3.  As  to  the  time,  we  object  to  the  Christians,  that  Jesus  did  not  come 
at  the  time  designated  by  the  prophets;  for  the  prophets  testify,  that  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah  should  be  '  in  the  end  of  days,'  or,  in  the  latter  days, 
(which,  surely,  have  not  yet  arrived)  as  it  is  in  Isaiah  ch.  ii.  : — '  It  shall  come 
to  pass  171  the  latter  days,  that  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be 
established  in  the  top  of  the  mountains,  and  all  nations  shall  flow  unto  it ;' 
and  it  immediately  follows,  concerning  the  king  Messiah,  '  that  he  shall  judge 
among  the  nations,  and  rebuke  many  peoples,  and  they  shall  beat  their 
swoi'ds  into  ploughshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning  hooks.'  See  also 
Hosea,  ch.  iii ,  and  also  Dan.,  ch.  ii.,  where  it  is  written  : — '  God  hath  made 
known  unto  king  Nebuchadnezzar  what  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  latter  days,' 
(or,  in  the  end  of  days.)  And  this  pertains  to  what  follows,  viz.,  to  this  : — 
*In  the  days  of  those  kings,  (i.  e.,  of  the  kingdoms  that  arose  out  of  the 
ruins  of  the  Roman  Empire)  the  God  of  heaven  will  raise  up  a  kingdom, 
which  shall  never  be  destroyed.'  Thus  you  see,  that  the  prophets  predicted, 
that  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  should  be  after  the  desti-uction  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  not  while  it  was  in  its  vigour ;  when  Jesus  came ;  in  '  the 
latter  days,'  and  not  before.* 

*  The  reader  is  requested  to  consider  the  reasoning  in  the  last  paragraph.  The 
prophecy  in  the  second  chapter  of  Daniel,  is  commonly  supposed  to  relate  to  the  four 
Great  Empires,  the  Babylonian,  Persian,  Grecian  and  Roman.  This  last,  it  is 
(according  to  this  interpretation,)  foretold,  should  be  divided  into  many  kingdoms, 
and  that  '  in  the  latter  days  of  these  kingdoms,'  (which  are  now  subsisting)  God  would 
set  up  a  kingdom  which  would  never  be  destroyed, — that  of  the  Messiah.  Of  course, 
accordhig  to  this  interpretation,  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  was  not  to  be  not  only 
not  till  after  the  destruction  of  the  Roman  Empire,  but  not  till  the  latter  days  of  the 
kingdoms  which  grew  up  out  of  its  ruins;  whereas,  Jesus  was  born  in  the  time 
of  Augustus,  i.  e.,  precisely  when  the  Roman  Empire  itself  was  in  the  highest  of  its 
splendour  and  vigour.  This  is  a  remarkable,  and  very  striking,  repugnance,  to  the 
claims  of  the  New  Testament,  and,  if  substantiated,  must  overset  them  entirely. — E. 


36 

"  4.  Besides  all  these  difficulties,  neither  were  the  promises  made  to  ua 
by  the  prophets,  concerning  the  things  to  come  to  pass  at  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah,  fulfilled  in  the  time  of  Jesus.  For  examples,  take  the  following : — 
*1.  In  the  time  of  the  king  Messiah,  there  was  to  be  one  kingdom  only,  and 
one  only  king  upon  earth,  viz.,  the  king  Messiah — see  Daniel,  ch.  ii. ;  but 
behold,  we  see  with  our  eyes,  many  independent  kingdoms,  distinct,  and 
distinguished  by  different  laws  and  customs,  religious  and  political,  which 
things  being  so,  it  follows,  that  the  Messiah  is  not  yet  come. 

"  2.  In  the  time  of  the  king  Messiah,  there  was  to  be  only  one  religion 
and  one  law  throughout  the  world ;  for,  it  is  wi;itten  in  Isaiah,  ch.  lii.  and 
Ixvi.,  that  all  nations  shall  come  at  stated  times  to  worship  the  Eternal  at 
Jerusalem.  See  also  Zechariah,  ch.  xiv.  and  ch.  viii.,  and  indeed  throughout 
the  writings  of  the  prophets. 

"  3.  In  the  time  of  the  king  Messiah,  idols  were  to  be  cut  oflP,  and 
utterly  to  perish  from  the  earth  ;  as  it  is  said  in  Zechariah,  ch.  xiii.,  and  so 
in  Isaiah,  ch.  ii.,  it  is  written,  'And  the  glory  of  idols  shall  utterly  pass 
away;'  and  so  in  Zephaniah,  ch.  ii.,  'The  Lord  shall  be  terrible  among 
them,  when  he  shall  make  lean  (i.  e.,  bring  to  nothing)  all  the  gods  of  the 
earth ;  and  all  the  countries  of  the  nations  shall  bow  themselves  to  Him,  each 
out  of  his  place.' 

"  4.  In  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  there  shall  obtain  no  more  sins  and 
crimes  in  the  earth,  especially  among  the  children  of  Israel,  as  is  affirmed  in 
Deut.  XXX.,  Zephaniah,  ch.  iii.,  and  in  Jeremiah,  ch.  iii.  and  1.,  and  so  in 
Ezekiel,  ch.  xxxvi.  and  xxxvii. 

"  5.  In  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  there  shall  be  peace  between  man  and 
beast,  and  between  the  tiger  and  the  tame  beast ;  and  the  little  child  shall 
stroke,  with  impunity,  the  variegated  skin  of  the  serpent,  and, — as  one  of  our 
own  poets  has  beautifully  said, — '  and  with  his  forked  tongue  shall  innocently 
play.'  See  in  Isaiah,  ch.  xi.  and  Ixv.,  the  original  from  whence  he  derived 
his  beautiful  poem. 

"  6.  In  the  time  of  the  king  Messiah,  there  are  to  be  no  calamities,  no 
afflictions,  no  lamentations  throughout  the  world.  But  the  inhabitants  thereof 
are  to  lead  joyful  lives  in  gratitude  to  the  good  God,  and  in  the  enjoyment 
of  his  bounties.     See  Isaiah  Ixv. 

"  Lastly.  In  the  time  of  the  king  Messiah,  the  glory  of  God  was  again  to 
return  to  Israel,  and  the  spirit  of  the  most  High  God  was  to  be  liberally 
poured  out  upon  them,  and  they  were  to  be  endowed  with  the  spirit  of 
prophecy,  and  with  wisdom,  and  knowledge,  and  understanding,  and  virtue; 
and  God  v/ill  no  more  hide  his  face  from  them  ;  but  will  bless  them,  and  give 
them  a  ready  heart  and  a  willing  mind  to  obey  his  laws,  and  enjoy  the 
felicities  consequent  thereupon.  And  the  Shechinah  shall  inhabit  the  temple 
for  ever,  and  the  glory  of  God  shall  never  depart  from  Israel ;  but  they  shall 
walk  amid  the  splendours  of  the  glory  of  the  Eternal,  and  all  the  earth  shall 
resound  with  his  praise,  as  is  written  in  Ezekiel,  ch.  xxxvii.,  and  xxxix.,  and 
xliii.  ;  and  in  Joel,  ch.  ii.,  and  in  Zech.,  ch.  ii.,  and  Isaiah,  ch.  xi.,  and 
throughout  the  latter  part  of  his  prophecies,  and  in  Jer.  xxxi." 

And  now,  reader,  let  me  ask  you  this  question,  has  any  one  of  the  fore- 
going prophecies  been  yet  fulfilled,  either  in  the  days  of  Jesus,  or  ever  siiice  f 
Thou  canst  not  say  it !  Now,  then,  hear  the  conclusion,  which,  in  sincerity, 
and  with  the  hand  upon  the  heart,  I  am  compelled  to  draw  from  these 
precedents.  "  Since  these  distinctive  characteristics  predicted  by  the 
Hebrew  prophets,  as  to  be  found  in  their  Messiah,  were  certainly,  and 
evidently,  never  found  in  Jesus  ;  and  since  these  conditions  and  circumstances, 
and  many  others  beside,  which,  to  avoid  prolixity,  have  been  omitted,  most 
assm'edly  did  not  take  place  in  the  tiniQ  of  Jesus,  nor  ever  since,  and  since 


37 

they  were  according  to  those  prophets,  certainly  to  be  expected  in  the  time 
of  their  Messiah;  therefore,  from  all  this,  it  seems  to  be  demonstrable 
(allowing  the  prophets  to  be  true,)  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  not  this  true 
Messiah."  And  I  would  ask  the  candid  Christian,  in  which  link  of  this  chain 
of  proofs  he  can  find  a  flaw?  And  I  would  ask  him,  too,  as  a  moral  and 
honest  man,  whether  any  Jew,  in  his  right  mind,  could,  without  setting  at 
nought  what  he  conceived  to  be  the  word  of  God,  receive  him  as  the 
Messiah  ?  The  honest  and  upright  answer,  I  believe,  will  be,  that  he  could 
not.  And,  accordingly,  it  is  very  well  known,  that  the  Jewish  nation  have 
never  done  so.  And  this  their  obstinacy,  as  it  is  called,  will  not  by  this  time, 
I  think,  appear  unreasonable  to  any  sensible  man  ;  and  he  will  now  be  able  to 
appreciate  the  justice  of  that  idle  cant  about  "the  carnal  Jews,"  and  their 
"  worldly-minded"  expectation  of  a  temporal  prince,  as  their  Messiah. 
Certainly,  the  Jews  had  very  good  reason,  from  their  prophecies,  to  expect  no 
Messiah  but  a  Messiah  who  should  sit  on  the  throne  of  David,  and  confer 
liberty  and  happiness  upon  them,  and  spread  peace  and  happiness  throughout 
the  earth,  and  communicate  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  virtue,  and  the  love 
of  their  fellow-men  to  every  people.  Whether  this  (carnal  or  not,)  would 
have  been  better  than  a  spiritual  kingdom,  and  a  throne  in  heaven ;  together 
with  the  ample  list  of  councils,  dogmas,  excommunications,  proscriptions, 
theological  quarrels,  and  frauds,  and  an  endless  detail  of  blood  and  murder, 
I  leave  to  the  judgment  of  those  capable  of  deciding  for  themselves. 

Neither,  in  fact,  is  it  true,  that  the  Jews  were  so  "  carnally  minded"  as 
to  refuse  Jesus  as  their  Messiah,  because  he  was  poor  and  in  a  low  estate. 
On  the  contrary,  did  they  not  ask  him  not  to  evade,  but  to  speak  plainly  ? 
"  How  long  (said  they)  dost  thou  mean  to  keep  us  in  suspense  ?  If  thou  be 
the  Messiah,  tell  us  plainly."  These  very  men  were  willing  to  hazard,  in  his 
favour,  their  fortunes,  their  families,  and  their  lives,  in  his  cause,  against  the 
whole  power  of  the  Roman  empire.  Nay,  so  urgent  were  they,  that  they 
were  going  to  make  him  their  king  by  force,  and  he  concealed  himself  from 
the  honour.  The  evasions  he  used  to  avoid  their  pressing  questions  upon 
the  subject,  are  known  to  all  who  have  read  the  evangelists ;  and  so  timed 
was  he  in  acknowledging  himself  as  the  Messiah,  that  he  did  not  do  so,  till 
Simon  Peter  told  him  that  he  was.  And  can  any  candid  man,  after  all  this, 
wonder  at,  or  condemn,  "  the  blindness,"  as  it  is  called,  of  the  Jews  ?  or  can 
he  refrain  from  smiling  at  the  frothy  declamations  in  which  divines  load  that 
nation  with  so  much  unmerited  reproach?  These  Jews  had  just  reason,  we 
think,  to  doubt  his  Messiahship ;  and  they  had  a  right  to  satisfactory  and 
unambiguous  proof  of  his  being  so :  even  the  proofs  laid  down  by  their 
prophets.  And  this,  it  must  be  now  acknowledged,  they  wanted ;  and, 
certainly,  the  wise  and  learned  of  the  Jewish  nation,  might  be  allowed  to 
have  understood  their  sacred  books  upon  the  subject,  as  well,  at  least,  if  not 
better,  than  the  illitei'ate  apostles,  who  manifestly  put  new  interpretations 
upon  them,  and  those,  confessedly,  not  agreeable  to  the  obvious  and  literal 
meaning  of  those  books ;  but  contrary  to  the  sense  of  the  Jewish  nation. 
And  for  this  scepticism  they  might  plead  the  example  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves, who,  at  first,  like  other  unbelieving  Jews,  expected  a  temporal  pi'ince ; 
and  did  disbelieve  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah  on  account  of  his  death,  notwith- 
standing his  miracles.  And  they  continued  in  these  thoughts,  till  it  seems 
they  come  to  understand  the  spiritual  sense  of  the  scriptures  ;  which  spiritual 
sense,  it  is  said,  they  obtained  by  "  the  traditionary  rules  of  interpretation 
in  use  among  the  Jews."  Yet,  it  is  i-ather  inconsistent  and  singular,  that  they 
should  place  so  much  dependance  upon  these  traditionary  rules,  and  yet  pay 
so  little  regard  to  the  traditionary  explication  of  the  scriptures,  with  respect 
to  the  temporal  kingdom  of  the  Messiah — inconsistent  and  singular  is  it,  that 


38 

they  should  "  cry  aloud"  for  that  which  would  support  thoir  peculiar  views, 
but  reject  it  when  militatiug  against  these  views.* 

*  The  sum  of  our  argument  may  be  expressed  thus.  God  is  represented  in  the 
prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  as  designinf^  to  send  into  the  world  an  eminent 
deliverer,  descended  from  David,  the  peace  and  prosperity  ot  whose  reign  should  far 
exceed  all  that  went  before  him,  in  whom  all  the  glorious  things  foretold  by  the 
prophets  should  receive  their  entire  completion  ;  and  who  should  be  distinguished  by 
the  character  of  the  Messiah  or  Christ.  This  is  an  article  of  faith  common  to 
Christians  and  Jews.  But  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  should  be  esteemed  this  Messiah, 
and  that  Christians  can  support  that  opinion,  by  alledging  the  prophecies  of  the 
Hebrew  scriptures  as  belonging  to,  and  fulfilled  in,  him,  is  what  we  can  by  no  means 
allow,  and  that  especially  on  account  of  these  inconsistencies. 

1.  Because,  these  prophecies,  acknowledged  on  both  sides  to  point  out  the 
Messiah,  could  not  otherwise  answer  the  end  of  inspiring  them  than  bi/  an  accomplish- 
ment so  plain  and  sensible,  as  miglit  sufficiently  distinr^uish  the  person  meant  by  them 
to  be  that  Messiah.  But  no  such  accomplishment,  we  contend,  can  possibly  be 
discerned  in  Jesus,  and,  consequently,  he  cannot  be  the  person  meant  by  them. 

2.  Because,  several  predictions  which  Christians  apply  to  Jesus,  are  wrested  to  a 
meaning  which  quite  destroys  the  historical  sense  of  scripture,  and  breaks  the 
connexion  of  the  passages  from  whence  they  are  taken.  Thus  many  shreds  and  loose 
sentences  are  culled  out  for  this  purpose,  which  do  not  appear  to  have  any  relation  to 
Jesus,  or  to  the  Messiah  either ;  but  to  have  received  their  proper  and  intended  com- 
pletion in  some  other  person,  whom  the  prophet,  as  is  manifest,  had  then  only  in  view. 

3.  Because,  in  their  forced  applictitions  of  the  prophecies.  Christians,  finding 
themselves  hard  pressed  by  the  simple  and  natural  construction,  forsake  the  literal, 
and  take  shelter  in  spiritual  and  mystical  senses;  ily  to  hyperboles  and  strained 
metaphors,  and  thus  expound  the  true  meaning  and  importance  of  the  prophecies 
quite  away;  the  intent  whereof  being  to  instruct  men  in  so  necessary  a  point  of  faith 
as  that  relating  to  the  Messiah,  it  is  reasonable  to  think  they  would  be  delivered  in  the 
most  perspicuous  and  intelligible  terms.  Since  ambiguous  expressions  (capable  of  such 
strange  meanings  as  they  pretend,)  would  be  too  slippery  a  foundation  to  build  such  a 
point  of  faith  upon  ;  would  be  of  no  use,  or  worse  than  none ;  woiild  be  unable  to  teach 
the  clear  truth,  and  apt  to  ensnare  men  into  dangerous  errors,  by  leaving  too  great  a 
latitude  for  fanciful  interpretations,  and  introducing  darkness  and  confusion,  and 
contradiction  inexplicable. 

4.  Because,  admitting  (as  indeed  it  never  was,  or  can  be  denied)  that  many 
passages  of  scripture,  and  of  prophetical  scripture  especially,  must  be  figuratively 
taken;  yet,  we  must  always  put  a  wide  difference  between  a  sense  not  just  as  the 
words  in  their  first  signification  import,  and  a  sense  directli/  the  contrary  of  what  they 
import.  And  yet  we  complain  that  this  latter  is  the  sense  which  Christians  labom*  to 
obtrude  upon  the  gainsayers.  We  say,  that  a  kingdom  of  this  Avorld,  and  not  of  this 
world ;  contempt  and  adoration  ;  poverty  and  magnificence ;  persecution  and  peace ; 
sufferings  and  triumph  ;  a  cross  and  a  throne  ;  the  scandalous  death  of  a  private  man 
upon  a  gibbet,  and  the  everlastingdominionof  a  universal  monarch,  must  \ic  reconciled, 
and  mean  the  self  same  thing,  before  the  prophecies  appealed  to,  can  do  their  cause  any 
service.  Granting,  then,  the  goodness  of  God  (according  to  them,)  to  have  been 
better  than  his  word,  by  giving  spiritual  blessings,  instead  of  temporal ;  yet,  what  will 
become  of  the  truth  of  God,  if  He  act  contrary  to  his  word,  even  when  it  would  be  for 
our  advantage,  if  He  misleads  people  by  expressions,  which,  if  they  mean  any  thing  at 
all,  must  mean  what  the  Jews  understand  by  them  ? 

In  short,  it  seems  to  me,  that  if  Providence  has,  in  truth,  any  concern  with  the 
predictions  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  could  not  have  taken  more  effectual  care  to  justify 
the  unbelief  and  obstinacy  of  the  Jews,  than  by  ordering  matters  so,  that  the  life  and 
death  of  Jesus  should  be  so  exacthj,  and  so  entirely,  the  very  reverse  of  all  those 
ideas  under  which  their  prophets  had  constantly  described,  and  the  Hebrew  nation 
as  constantly  expected  of  their  Messiah,  and  his  coming ;  and  to  suppose  that  the  Su- 
preme Being  meant  to  describe  and  point  out  such  a  person  as  Jesus  by  such  descrip- 
tions of  the  Messiah  as  are  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  certainly  substantially 
to  accuse  him  of  the  most  unjustifiable  prevarication,  and  mockery  of  his  creatures. 


39 
CHAPTER  IX, 

OP  THE  CHARACTER  OF  JESUS  OF  NAZARETH   AND   THE   WEIGHT    TO    BE    ALLOWED    TO    THB 
ARGUMENT   OF    MARTYRDOM   AS   A   TEST   OF    TRUTH    IN    THIS    QUESTION, 

I  AM  now  about  to  consider  a  subject,  to  which,  notwithstanding  the  harsh- 
ness of  my  language  in  some  of  the  preceding  chapters,  I  approach  with 
feelings  of  gi*eat  respect.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  reproach  the  meek,  the 
compassionate,  the  amiable  Jesus ;  or  to  attribute  to  him,  the  mischiefs 
occasioned  by  his  followerst     No,  I  look  upon  his  character  with  the 

In  order  that  the  subject  we  are  examining,  and  the  arguments  we  make  use  of, 
may  be  clearly  understood  by  the  reader,  he  is  requested  to  bear  in  mind,  that  the 
author  reasons  all  along  upon  the  supposed  Divine  authority  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  is  admitted  by  both  Jews  and  Christians.  Whether  the  supernatural  claims  of 
the  Old  Testament  be  just,  or  not,  is  of  no  consequence  in  the  world  to  the  contro- 
versy we  are  considering.  For  the  dispute  of  the  Jew  with  the  Christian  is  one 
thing,  and  his  dispute  with  the  sceptic  is  another,  totally  different.  For  whether  such  a 
personage  as  the  Messiah  is  described  to  be,  has  appeared  eighteen  hundred  years  ago, 
is  quite  a  different  thing  from  the  question,  whether  such  a  personage  will  appear  at 
all.  The  Christian  says,  that  he  has  appeared  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
This  the  Jew  denies,  but  looks  forward  to  the  future  fulfilment  of  the  promises  in  his 
Bible.     While  the  Sceptic  denies  that  the  Messiah  has  come,  or  ever  wiU. 

But  the  subject  at  present  under  consideration  is  the  dispute  of  the  Jew  with  the 
Christian,  who  acknowledges  the  Old  Testament  to  be  a  Revelation,  upon  which  a 
new  Revelation,  that  of  the  New  Testament,  is  founded  and  erected.  To  him  the 
Jew  argues,  that  if  the  Old  Testament  be  a  Divine  Revelation,  then  the  New 
Testament  cannot  be  a  Revelation,  because  it  contradicts,  and  is  repugnant  to,  the 
Old  Testament,  the  more  ancient,  and  acknowledged  Revelation.  Now  God  cannot 
be  the  author  of  two  Revelations,  one  of  which  is  repugnant  to  the  other.  One  of 
them  is  certainly  false.  And  if  the  Christian,  conscious  of  the  difficulty  of  reconciling 
the  New,  with  the  Old,  Testament,  attempts  to  support  the  New,  at  the  expense  of  the 
Old,  Testament,  upon  which  the  former  is,  and  was,  built  by  the  founders  of  Christian- 
ity ;  then  the  Jew  would  tell  him,  that  he  acts  as  absurdly  as  would  the  man  who 
should  expect  to  make  his  house  the  firmer,  by  undermining,  and  weakening  its 
foundation. 

So  that  whether  the  Christian  affirms,  or  denies,  he  is  ruined  either  way.  For  he 
is  reduced  to  this  fatal  dilemma.  If  the  Old  Testament  contains  a  Revelation  from 
God,  then  the  New  Testament  is  not  from  God,  for  God  cannot  contradict  himself: 
and  it  can  be  proved  abundantly,  that  the  New  Testament  is  contradictory,  and 
repugnant  to  the  Old  and  to  itself  too.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Old  Testament 
contains  no  Revelation  from  God,  then  the  New  Testament  must  go  down  at 
any  rate ;  because  it  asserts  that  the  Old  Testament  does  contain  a  Revelation  from 
God,  and  builds  upon  it,  as  a  foundation. — E.  <• 

f  There  was  nothing  which  gave  the  author,  in  writing  this  Book,  so  much 
uneasiness,  at  the  apprehension  of  being  supposed  to  entertain  disrespectful  sentiments 
of  the  Founder  of  the  Christian  Religion.  I  would  most  earnestly  entreat  the  reader 
to  believe  my  solemn  assurances,  that  by  nothing  that  I  have  said,  or  shall  be  under 
the  necessity  of  saying,  do  I  think,  or  mean  to  intimate  the  slightest  disparagement 
to  the  moral  character  of  one,  whose  purity  of  morals,  and  good  intentions,  deserve 
any  thing  else  but  reproach.  That  he  was  an  enthusiast,  I  do  not  doubt ;  that  he  was 
a  wilful  impostor  I  never  will  believe.  And  I  protest  before  God,  that  from  the 
apprehensions  above-mentioned  alone,  I  would  have  confined  the  contents  of  this 
volume  to  myself,  did  I  not  feel  compelled  to  justify  myself  for  h£fving  quitted  a 
profession  :  and  did  I  not,  above  all,  think  it  my  duty,  to  make  a  well  meant  attempt, 
which  I  hope  will  be  seconded,  to  vindicate  the"  unbelief  of  an  unfortunate  nation, 
who,  on  that  account,  have  for  almost  eighteen  hundred  years,  been  made  the  victims 
of  rancorous  prejudice,  the  most  infernal  cruelties,  and  the  most  atrocious  wickedness. 
If  the  Christian  religion  be,  in  truth,  not  well  founded,  surely  it  is  the  duty  of  every 


40 

respect  which  every  man  should  pay  to  purity  of  morals  :  though  mingled 
Tfith  something  like  the  sentiments  which  we  naturally  feel  for  the 
mistaken  enthusiast.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  appears  to  have  been  a  man  of 
irreprochable  purity,  of  great  piety,  and  of  great  mildness  of  disposition. 
Though  the  world  has  never  beheld  a  character  exactly  parallel  with  his, 
yet  it  has  seen  many,  greatly  similar.  Contemplative,  and  melancholy,  it  is 
said  of  him  by  his  followers,  "he  was  often  seen  to  weep,  but  never  to  laugh." 
Heretiredtosolitary  places,  and  there  pi-ayed  :  he  w-ent  into  the  wilderness  to 
sustain  and  to  vanrjuish  the  assaults  of  the  devil :  In  a  word,  he  appears  by  such 
means  to  have  persuaded  himself,  as  hundreds  have  done  since,  that  he  was 
the  chosen  servant  of  God,  raised  up  to  preach  righteousness  to  the  hypo- 
crites, and  sirtners  of  his  day.  It  is  remarkable,  that  he  never  claimed  to  be 
the  Messiah,  till  encouraged  to  assume  that  character  by  Peter's  declaration. 
And  it  is  observable,  that  in  assuming  that  name,  he  could  not  assume  the 
characteristics  of  the  august  personage  to  whom  it  belongs ;  but  infused 
into  the  character  all  that  softness,  meekness,  humility,  and  passive  fortitude, 
which  were  so  eminently  his  own.  The  natural  disposition,  and  character 
of  Jesus,  could  not  permit  him  to  attempt  the  character  of  a  princely 
Messiah,  a  mighty  monarch,  the  saviour  of  an  oppressed  people,  and  the 
benefactor  of  the  human  race.  He  could  not  do  this,  but  he  could  act  as 
much  of  the  character  as  was  consistent  with  his  own.  He  could  not  indeed 
bring  himself  to  attempt  to  be  the  saviour  of  his  countrymen  from  the 
Romans,  their  fleshly  foes  ;  but  he  undertook  to  save  them  from  the  tyranny 
of  their  spiritual  enemies.  He  could  not  undertake  to  set  up  his  kingdom 
upon  earth ;  but  he  told  them  that  he  had  a  kingdom  in  another  world.  He 
could  not  pretend  to  give  unto  his  followers  the  splendid  rewards  of  an 
earthly  monai-ch:  but  he  promised  them  instead  thereof,  forgiveness  of 
sins,  and  spiritual  remuneration. 

In  a  word,  he  was  not  a  king  fit  for  the,  then, '  carnal  Jews,'  but  he  was,  from 
his  mildness,  and  compassionate  temper,  worthy  of  their  esteem,  at  least,  of 
their  forbearance.  The  only  actions  of  his  life  which  betray  any  marks  of 
character  deserving  of  serious  reprehension,  are  his  treatment  of  the  woman 
taken  in  adultery  ;  and  his  application  of  the  prophecy  of  Malachi  concern- 
ing Elias,  to  John  the  Baptist. 

As  to  his  conduct  to  the  woman,  it  was  the  conduct  of  a  mild,  and 
merciful  man,  but  not  that  of  one  who  declared,  "  that  he  came  to  fulfil  the 
law."  For  God  commanded  concerning  such,  "  that  they  should  surely  be 
put  to  death."  Now  though  Jesus  was  not  her  judge,  and  had  no  right  to 
pronounce  her  sentence ;  yet  the  contrivance  by  which  he  deterred  the 
witness  from  testifying  against  her,  was  a  contrivence  directly  calculated 
totally  to  frustate  the  ends  of  justice  ;  and  which,  if  acted  upon  at  this  day, 
in  Christian  countries,  would  infallibly  prevent  the  execution  of  the  criminal 
law  :  For  what  testimony  would  be  sufficient  to  prove  a  fact,  if  the  witnesses 
■were  required  to  be  "  without  sin  ?''  Instead,  therefore,  of  saying  unto 
them,  "  whosoever  of  you  is  without  sin,  let  him  cast  the  first  stone  at  her ;" 
he  should  have  said,  '  Men !  who  made  me  a  judge,  or  a  ruler  over  you? 
can-y  the  accused  to  the  proper  tribunal.' 

As  to  his  conduct  about  the  jaiatter  of  Elias,  it  was  as  follows;  It  is  said 
in  the  17th  chapter  of  Matthew,  that  at  his  transfiguration,  as  it  is  called, 

honest  and  every  humane,  man,  to  endeavour  to  dispel  an  illusion,  which  certainly 
has  been,  notwithstanding  any  thing  that  can  be  said  to  the  contrary,  the  bona  fide, 
and  real  cause  of  unspeakable  misery,  and  of  repeated,  and  remorseless  plunderings, 
and  massacres,  to  an  unhappy  people ;  the  journal  of  whose  sufferings,  on  account  of 
it,  forms  the  blackest  page  in  the  history  of  the  human  race,  and  the  most  detestable 
one  in  the  history  of  human  superstition. — E, 


41 

Moses,  and  Elias  appeared  to  his  disciples  on  the  mounts  talking  with  Jesus. 
Upon  coming  down  from  the  mount,  the  disciples  asked  Jesus,  "  how  say 
the  scribes  that  Elias  must  come  fii'st,  (that  is,  before  the  Messiah.)  Jesus 
answered,  Elias  truly  comcth  first,  and  restoreth  all  things ;  but  I  say  unto 
you,  that  Elias  has  come  already  and  they  have  done  unto  him  what  they 
would :"  meaning  John  the  Baptist,  who  was  beheaded  by  Herod.  (See 
the  parallel  place  in  Mark.)  And  he  says  concerning  John,  (Mat  xi.  14,) 
*'  And  if  ye  will  receive  it,  this  is  Elias  which  was  for  to  come." 

Now  certainly  no  one  will  pretend  that  John  was  the  Elias  prophecied  of 
by  Malachi,  as  to  come  before  '•'  the  great,  and  teri'ible  day  of  the  Lord," 
which  has  not  yet  taken  place.  And  besides,  that  he  was  not  Elias  is  tes- 
tified of,  and  confirmed  by,  John  himself,  who  in  the  gospel  of  John,  chapter 
1,  to  the  question  of  the  Scribes,  asking  him,  "  if  he  was  Elias  ?"  answers 
"  I  am  not."  It  is  pretty  clear  that  Jesus  was  embarrassed  by  the  question 
of  the  Apostles,  "  how  say  the  Scribes,  that  Elias  must  come  first  ?"  for  his 
answer  is  confused  ;  for  he  allows  the  truth  of  the  observation  of  the  Scribes, 
and  then  refers  them  to  John,  and  insinuates  that  he  was  "  the  Elias  to 
come."  However,  it  must  bo  acknowledged,  that  he  does  it  with  an  air  of 
hesitation,  "  If  ye  will  receive  it,"  &c. 

But  are  these  all  the  accusations  you  have  to  bring  against  him?  may  be 
Baid  by  some  of  my  readers.  Do  you  account  as  nothing,  his  claiming  to 
forgive  sins  ?  his  speeches  wherein  he  claims  to  be  considered  as  an  object  of 
religious  homage,  if  not  to  be  God  himself?  Do  you  consider  these 
impieties  as  nothing  ?  I  answer  by  asking — the  following  questions :  What 
would  you  think  of  a  man  who,  in  our  times,  should  set  up  those  extra- 
ordinary claims  ?  and  who  should  assert,  that  "  eating  his  flesh,  and  drinking 
his  blood"  were  necessary  to  secure  eternal  life  ?  Who  should  say,  that 
"  he  and  God  were  one?"  and  .should  affirm  (as  Jesus -does  in  the  last 
chapters  of  John)  that  "  God  was  inside  of  him,  and  dwelt  in  him ;  and 
that  "  he  who  had  seen  him,  had  seen  God ':'  What  should  we  think  of 
this  ?  Should  we  consider  such  a  man  an  object  of  wrath,  or  of  pity  ? 
Should  we  not  directly,  and  without  hesitation,  attribute  such  exti'avagan- 
cies  to  hallucination  of  mind  ?  Yes,  certainly !  and  therefore  the  Jews  were 
to  blame  for  crucifying  Jesus.  If  Christians  had  put  to  death  every  unfor- 
tunate, who  after  being  frenzied  by  religious  fasting  and  contemplation, 
became  wild  enough  to  assert,  that  he  was  Christ,  or  God  the  Father,  or  the 
Virgin  Mary,  or  even  the  Holy  Trinity,  they  would  have  been  guilty  of  more 
than  fifty  murders  ;  for  I  have  read  of  at  least  as  many  instances  of  this 
nature  ;  and  believe  that  more  than,  two  hundred  such  might  be  reckoned  up 
from  the  hospital  records  of  Europe  alone.  And  that  the  founder  of  the 
Christian  religion  was  not  always  in  one  coherent  consistent  mind,  I  think 
will  appear  plain  to  every  intelligent  physician  who  reads  his  discourses ; 
especially  those  in  the  gospel  of  John.  They  are  a  mixture  of  something 
that  looks  like  sublimity,  strangely  disfigured  by  wild,  and  incoherent  words. 
So  unintelligible  indeed,  that  even  the  profoundest  of  Chi'istian  divines 
have  never  been  able  to  fathom  all  their  mysteries.  To  prove  that  I  do  not 
Bay  these  things  rashly,  wickedly,  or  out  of  any  malignity  towards  the 
character  of  Jesus,  which  I  really  respect  and  venerate,  I  will  establish  my 
assertions  by  examples.     For  instance — 

• Many  instances  might  be  adduced  of  conduct  directly  subversive  of 

the  very  design,  to  promote  which,  he  said  that  he  was  sent  into  the  world. 
For  example,  he  said  that  he  came  to  preach  glad  tidings  to  the  poor,  and 
uninformed  ;  and  yet  he  declares  to  his  disciples,  that  he  spake  to  this  very 
multitude  of  poor  and  iguorant  people  in  parables,  lest  they  might  under- 
stand him,  and  be  converted  from  their  sins,  and  God  should  heal,  or  pardon 


43 

them.  In  the  26th  chapter  of  Matthew,  Jesus  says  to  his  disciples,  in  the 
garden  of  Gethsemano,  these  strange  words,  "  Sleep  on  now,  and  take  your 
rest —  Arise !  let  us  be  going."  The  commentators  endeavour  to  get  rid  of 
the  strange  contradictorinoss  of  those  words,  by  turning  the  command  into 
the  future ;  and  rendering  the  Grook  word  translated  "  now"  thus — "  for 
the  rest  of  your  time,"  or  "  for  the  future."  And  that  he  asked  them. 
♦'  whether  they  slept  for  the  future"?!  which  appears  to  be  just  as  rational 
as  to  have  asked,  "  how  they  do  to-morrow"  ?! ! 

Jo.  viii.  51,  "Verily,  vorily  (said  Jesus)  I  say  unto  you,  if  a  man  keep  my 
Baying,  he  shall  never  see  death  "  Reader,  what  dost  thou  think  of  this 
saying  ?  Has  believing  in  the  Christian  religion,  at  all  prevented  men  from 
dying  as  in  afore  time?  And  should  we  be  at  all  astonished  at  what  the 
Jews  said  to  him,  when  they  heard  this  assertion — "  Then  said  the  Jews  unto 
him,  Now  we  know  that  thou  hast  a  demon  [i.  e.  art  mad.]  Abraham  is 
dead,  and  the  Prophets,  and  thou  sayest  if  a  man  keep  my  saying,  he  shall 
never  taste  of  death  ?"  So  sai<l  the  Jews,  and  if  in  our  times,  a  man  was  to 
make  a  similar  assertion,  should  we  not  say  the  same  ? 

Many  instances  might  also  be  given  of  strange  and  inconsequent 
reasoning  ;  but  I  shall  only  adduce  the  following.  He  reproaches  tho 
Pharisees,  Luke  xi.  47,  4«,  for  building  and  adorning  the  sepulchi-es  of  tho 
Prophets,  whom  their  wicked  fathers  slew  ;  and  says  to  them,  "  "Your 
fathers  slew  them,  and  ye  build  their  sepukhres,"  and  he  adds,  "  that  thus 
they  showed  that  they  approved  the  deeds  of  their  fathers  !"  Surely  this  is 
absurd  !  Bid  the  Athenians  by  setting  up  a  statue  to  Socrates  after  his  unjust 
death,  show  to  tho  world  that  they  "  approved"  the  deed  of  them  who  slew 
him?  did  it  not  show  the  direct  contrary?  and  was  it  not  intended  as  a 
testimony  of  their  regret,  and  repentance? 

Again,  "  Upon  you  (says  Jesus  to  the  Jews)  shall  come  all  the  righteous 
blood  that  has  been  shed  upon  the  earth,  from  the  blood  of  Abel  tho 
righteous,  to  the  blood  of  Zechariah,"  &c.  Now,  herein  is  a  marvellous 
thing!  how  could  a  man  really  sent  from  God,  ;xssert  to  the  Jews,  that  of 
thehi  should  be  required  the  blood  of  Abel,  and  of  all  the  righteous  slain 
upon  the  earth?  Did  the  Jews  kill  Abel?  or  did  their  fathers  kill  him? 
No!  he  was  slain  by  Cain,  whose  posterity  all  perished  in  the  deluge;  how 
then  could  God  require  of  the  Jews  who  lived  four  thousand  years  alter  tho 
murder,  the  guilt  of  it;  nay  more,  "of  all  the  righteous  blood  that  had 
been  shed  upon  tlie  earth,"  were  thoy  guilty  of  all  that  too  ?  If  such 
assertions,  and  such  reasonings  do  not  prove  what  I  asserted,  what  can  ? 

It  is  said,  that  Jesus,  by  giving  himself  up  to  suffer  death,  ]>roved  tho 
truth  of  his  mission  and  doctrines,  by  his  readiness  to  die  for  them.  But 
this  is  an  argument  which  will  recoil  upon  those  who  advance  it.  Aro 
there  no  instances  upon  record  of  mild,  zealous,  and  amia\)le  men  who 
preached  to  the  savages  of  America  that  they  ought  to  worship  tho  Virgin 
Mary  ?  and  did  they  not  cheerfully  die  by  the  most  excruciating  torments  to 
prove  it?  Yes  certainly  !  and  let  any  Protestant  Christian  read  the  accounts 
of  the  preaching,  sufferings,  deaths,  aye!  and  miracles  too,  of  tho  Roman 
Catholic  missionaries  in  Asia,  and  America  ;  and  then  let  him  candidly 
answer  whether  he  is  willing  to  rest  the  issue  of  his  controversy  with  tho 
Papists  upon  tho  aigument  of  martyrdom  ?  We  all  know  the  power  of 
enthusiasm  upon  a  susceptilde  mind  ;  and  wo  haven^ad  of,  and  perhaps  seen, 
its  effects  in  producing  martyrdoms  amorg  people  of  all  religions,  in  all 
parts  of  the  world.  Nay,  more,  such  is  the  power  of  this  principle,  that 
even  now,  women  in  India  burn  themselves  alive  on  the  funeral  piles  of 
their  husl)ands,  to  prove,  as  they  say,  their  love  for  them,  and  their 
determination   to  accompany  them  to  the  other  world ;  when  it  is  well 


43 

known,  that  they  bum  themselves  from  the  impulse  of  vanity,  and  the  fear 
of  disgrace,  if  they  shouhl  not  do  so.  Nay,  more  still,  so  little  support  does 
martyrdom  yield  to  truth,  that  there  are  more  martyrdoms  in  honour  of  the 
false,  ridiculous,  and  abominable  idols  of  Ilindostan,  than  any  where  else. 
You  may  see  men  hooked  through  the  ribs,  and  supported,  and  whirled 
round  in  the  air  in  honour  of  their  gods,  clapping  their  hands,  and  testifying 
pleasure,  instead  of  crying  out  with  pain.  You  may  see  in  that  country  the 
misguided  enthusiastic  worshippers  of  mishapen  idols  prostrate  their  bodies 
before  the  enormous  wheels  of  the  car  of  Seeva,  and  piously  suffering 
themselves  to  be  crushed  in  pieces  by  the  rolling  mass.  And  any  man  who 
has  been  upon  the  banks  of  the  Ganges,  can  tell  you  of  the  Yoguis,  and  of 
their  self-inflicted  torments,  compared  to  which,  even  the  cross  is  almost  a 
bod  of  roses.  Indeed  the  argument  of  martyrdom  will  support  any  religion; 
and  it  has,  in  fact,  been  cheerfully  undergone  by  enthusiasts  and  zealots  of 
all  religions,  in  testimony  of  the  firm  belief  of  the  sufferers  not  only  in  the 
absurdities  of  Popery,  and  Brachinanism,  but  of  every,  even  the  most 
monstrous  system  .  that  ever  disgraced  the  human  understanding.  There 
have  been  martyrs  for  Atheism  itself. 

This  argument  of  martyrdom  has  been  more  particularly  applied  to  the 
Apostles  and  first  Christians.  "  How  can  it  be  imagined,  (say  Christiaa 
Divines,)  that  simple  men  like  the  Apostles  could  be  induced  to  leave  their 
employment,  and  wander  up  and  down,  to  teach  the  doctrines,  and  testify 
to  the  facts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  expose  themselves  to  persecution, 
imprisonment,  scourging,  and  untimely  and  violent  death:  unless  they 
certainly  knew,  that  both  the  doctrines,  and  the  facts  were  true?  Besides, 
what  honours,  what  riches,  could  they  expect  to  get  by  supporting  false 
doctrine,  and  false  testimony  ?" 

To  this  argument  I  might  reply  as  in  the  preceding  pages,  for  I  would 
ask,  have  we  not  seen  simple  and  honest  men  quit  their  employments,  and 
wander  up  and  down  to  preach  doctrines  which  they  not  only  had  no  means 
of  certainly  knowing  to  be  true,  but  which  they  did  not  even  understand? 
Have  wo  not  seen  such  men  submit  to  deprivations  of  every  kind,  and 
exposed  to  imprisonment,  and  the  whipping  post  ?  And  do  we  not  certainly 
know,  that  some  such  have  cheerfully  suffered  a  most  cruel  death  ? 

Is  it  possible  that  any  sensible  man,  after  reading  the  History  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Missionaries,  the  Baptists,  the  Quakers,  and  the  Methodists, 
can  be  convinced  of  the  certain  truth  of  the  Christian  religion,  or  seriously 
endeavour  to  convince  another  of  it,  by  such  an  argument  as  the  above  ? 

But  much  more  than  this  can  be  said  upon  this  topic;  for  it  can  be 
shown,  that  ihe  Apostles  in  preaching  Christianity,  did  not  suffer  near  so 
much  as  some  well  meaning  enthusiasts  in  modern  times  have  suffered,  to 
propagate  religious  tenets,  notoriously  false  and  absurd.  And  that  the 
Apostles  could  expoct  to  get  neither  fame,  nor  honour,  nor  riches  by  their 
preaching,  is  doubtful.  This  is  certain  that  they  could  not  lose  much.  For 
they  were  confessedly  men  of  the  lowest  rank  in  society,  and  of  great 
poverty — poor  fishermen,  who  could  not  feel  a  very  great  regard  for  their 
own  dignity,  or  respectability.  And  it  was  by  no  means  a  small  thing  for 
such  men  to  be  considered  as  divine  Apostles,  and  "  in  exchange  for  heavenly 
things,"  to  have  the  earthly  possessions  of  their  converts  "  laid  at  their  feet." 
Peter  left  his  nets,  his  boat,  and  boorish  companions,  and  after  persuading 
his  disciples  to  receive  his  words  for  oracles,  go  where  he  would,  he  found 
ample  hospitality  from  them.  This,  at  least,  was  an  advantageous  change, 
and  though  they  did  not  acquire  fame,  or  respect  from  tho  higher  ranks  of 
society,  they  were  at  least  had  in  great  respect  by  their  followers.  Neither 
George  Fox,  nor  Whitfield,  nor  Weatley  were  honoured  by  the  nobility,  or 


44 

gentry?  or  scholars  of  England  ;  nor  Ann  Lee,  by  the  most  respocfcalile  citizens 
of  the  United  States.  Yet  among  tlioir  disciples,  the  Quakers,  the  Methodists, 
and  the  Shakers  they  were  held  in  the  most  implicit  veneration  and  can 
any  man  believe  that  they  did  not  think  themselves  thus  well  payed  for  the 
trouble  of  making  converts  ? 

It  is  true  that  the  Apostles  did  not  acquire  riches,  for  they  wore 
conversant  only  with  the  poor.  But  neither  had  they  any  to  lose,  by  taking 
up  the  profession  of  Apostles,  and  Preachers.  At  least  by  prcar^hing  the 
gospel,  they  obtained  food,  and  cloathing,  and  contributions;  as  is  evident 
from  many  places  in  the  Epistles,  where  they  write  to  their  converts,  "  It  is 
written,  '  thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out  the  com  ;'"  and 
Paul  tells  them,  that  they  must  not  think  from  this  place,  that  God  takes 
care  for  oxen,  "  for,  (says  he,)  it  was  undoubtedly  written  for  our  sakes." 
Thus  we  see  that  the  gospel  was  by  no  means  altogether  unprofitable,  and 
many  men  daily  risk  their  lives  for  U)ss  gain  than  the  Apostles  did. 

As  to  the  dangers  to  which  it  is  said  they  exposed  thomselves,  they  had 
none  to  fear,  except  in  Judca,  which  they  quickly  quitted,  finding  the  Jews 
too  stubborn,  and  went  to  the  Greeks.  Fi'oni  the  Greeks,  and  likewise  from 
the  Romans,  they  had  not  much  to  foar,  who  were  not  very  difficult  or 
scrupulous  in  admitting  new  gods,  and  new  modes  of  worship.  Besides 
this,  the  Romans  for  a  great  while  seem  to  have  considered  the  Christians 
merely  as  a  Jewish  sect  who  differed  fi-om  the  rest  of  the  Jews  in  matters 
not  worth  notice  ;  as  is  to  be  gathered  from  Tacitus  and  Suetonius.  And  if 
the  Apostles  did  speak  against  the  Pagan  gods,  it  was  no  more  than  what 
the  Roman  poets  and  philosophers  did  ;  and  the  magistrates  wore  not  then 
very  severe  about  it.  And  it  is  evident  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that 
the  Roman  pra?tors  considered  the  accusations  against  Paul  and  his 
companions,  as  mere  trifles.  But  in  Judea,  where  the  danger  Avas  evident, 
it  was  otherwise.  When  Paul  was  in  peril  there,  on  account  of  his 
transgressions  against  the  law,  after  being  deliverc(I  from  the  Jews  by  the 
Roman  garrison  at  Jerusalem,  he  pleaded  before  Festus  and  Agrippa,  that 
he  was  falsely  accused  by  the  Jews  ;  and  he  asserted  that  he  had  taught 
nothing  against  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  his  country,  but  that  he  only  preached 
about  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ;  and  that  it  was  for  this  that  the  Jews 
persecuted  him ;  and  ended  by  appealing  to  Cfcsar.  When  yet  he  knew 
that  this  was  not  the  reason  of  the  hatred  of  the  Jew  against  him  ;  but  that 
it  was  because  he  taught  that  circumcision,  and  the  Law  of  Moses  were 
abolished,  and  no  longer  binding :  which  is  evident  to  any  one  who  will  read 
the  Acts,  and  the  Epistle  to  th(!  Galatians.  So  you  see  by  what  manoeuvre 
he  got  out  of  the  difficulty :  first,  by  at  least  equivocating,  and  then  by 
refusing  to  be  tried  by  his  own  countrymen,  and  appealing  to  Cresar ;  thus 
securing  himself  a  safe  conduct  out  of  Judea,  which  was  too  dangerous  for 
him.  Among-  the  Gentiles,  their  doctrine  bad  a  better  chance  of  success, 
for  they  taught  them  marvellous  doctrines,  such  as  they  had  been  accustomed 
to  listen  to,  viz.  how  the  Son  of  God  was  born  of  a  virgin,  and  was  cruelly 
put  to  death ;  and  that  his  Divine  Fatlicr  raised  him  from  the  dead.  The 
idea  of  God's  having  a  son  of  a  woman  did  not  shock  them,  for  all  their 
demigods  they  believed  had  been  so  begotten;  and  a  great  part  of  their 
poems  are  filled  with  the  exploits  and  the  sufferings  of  these  heroes,  who  are 
at  length  rewarded  by  being  raised  from  earth  to  heaven,  as  Jesus  is  said  to 
have  been.  These  doctrines  were  not  disrelished  by  the  common  people, 
but  were  rejected  by  the  wise  and  learned.  Accordingly  we  see  that  Paul 
could  make  nothing  of  the  iihilosophers  of  Athens,  who  derided  him,  and 
considered  him  as  telling  them  a  story  similar  to  those  of  their  owa 
mythology,  when  he  preached  to  them  Jesus  and  the  resurrection.     And  ia 


45 

revenge,  we  see  Paul  railing  against  both  the  stubborn  Jews,  and  the 
incorrigable  philosophers,  as  being  unworthy  of  knowing  "  the  hiddea 
wisdom,"  which  was  to  the  one  "  a  stumbling  block,"  and  to  the  other, 
"  foolishness,"  and  which  he  thought  fit  only  for  "  the  babes,"  and  "  the 
devout  women,"  with  whom  he  principally  dealt. 

That  the  New  Testament  inculcates  an  excellent  morality,  cannot  be 
denied ;  for  its  best  moral  precepts  were  taken  from  the  Old  Testament. 
And  if  the  Apostles  had  not  preached  good  morals,  how  could  they  havd 
expected  to  be  considered  by  the  Gentiles  as  messengers  from  God  ?  For  if 
they  had  inculcated  any  immoralities,  such  as  rebellion,  mui'der,  adulteiy, 
robbery,  revenge,  their  mission  would  not  only  have  been  disbelieved,  but 
they  would  have  undergone  capital  punishment  by  the  sentence  of  the  judge, 
which  it  was  their  business  to  avoid.  Mahomet,  throughout  the  Koran, 
inculcates  all  the  virtues,  and  pointedly  reprobates  vice  of  all  kinds.  His 
morality  is  merely  the  pi-ecepts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  modified  a 
little,  -and  expressed  in  Arabic.  They  are  good  precepts,  and  always  to  be 
listened  to  with  respect,  wherever,  and  by  whomsoever,  inculcated.  But 
surely  that  will  not  prove  Islamism  to  be  from  God,  nor  that  Mahomet 
was  his  prophet ! 

That  the  Apostles  suffered  death  on  account  of  their  preaching  'the 
gospel,  if  allowed  to  be  fact,  as  said  before,,  proves  nothing.  Many  have 
suffered  death  for  false  and  absurd  doctrines.  But  whether  any  of  the 
Apostles,  (besides  James  who  was  slain  by  Herod,)  died  a  natural,  or  a 
violent  death,  the  learned  Christians  do  not  certainly  know.  For  there  iS 
extant  no  authentic  history  of  the  Apostles,  besides  the  Acts.  There 
are  indeed  many  fabulous  narrations  published  by  the  Papists,  called 
Martyrologies,  stuft'ed  with  the  most  extravagant  lies,  which  no  learned  mau 
now  regards ;  and  who  therefore  will  credit  what  such  books  say  of  the 
Apostles  ?  Peter  is  said  in  them  to  have  been  put  to  death  at  Rome  by 
Nero,  nevertheless  most  of  the  learned  men  of  the  Protestants  assert,  that 
Peter  never  was  in  Rome,  and  as  for  Paul,  no  one  certainly  knows  where, 
when,  or  how  he  finished  his  days.  So  that  if  we  were  even  to  allow  the 
feeble  argument  of  Martyrdom,  all  the  influence  and  weight  given  to  it,  it 
would  not  apply  to  the  Apostle'fe,  who,  we  are  sure,  derived  some  benefit  by 
preaching  the  gospel,  and  are  not  sure  that  they  came  to  any  harm  by  it. 

I  will  conclude  this  long  chapter,  by  laying  before  my  reader  some 
extracts  from  the  book  written  by  Celsus,  a  heathen  philosopher,  against 
Christianity,  preserved  by  Origen  in  his  work  against  Celsus.  That  the 
entire  work  of  Celsus  is  lost,  is  to  be  regretted ;  as  he  appears  to  have  been  a 
man  of  observation,  though  too  sarcastic  to  please  a  fair  inquirer  ;  and  from 
the  picture  given  by  him  of  the  first  Christians,  their  maxims,  and  their 
modes  of  teaching,  and  the  subjects  they  chose  for  converts,  it  appears,  that 
they  were  the  exact  prototypes  of  the  Methodists  and  Shakers  of  the  present 
day,  both  sects  which  contain  excellent  people,  with  hardly  any  fault  but 
credulity. 

"  If  they  (i.  e.  the  teachers  of  Christianity,)  say  '  do  not  examine,'  and 
the  like:  it  is  however  incumbent  on  them  to  teacb  what  those  things  are 
which  they  assert,  and  whence  they  are  derived." 

'•  Wisdom  in  life  is  a  bad  thing,  but  folly  is  good." 

"  Why  should  Jesus,  when  an  infant,  be  earned  into  Egypt,  lest  he  should 
be  murdered  ?     God  should  not  fear  being  put  to  death." 

"  You  say  that  God  was  sent  to  sinners  :  but  why  not  to  those  who  are 
free  from  sin  ?     What  harm  is  it  not  to  have  sinned  ? 

*'  You  encourage  sinners,  because  you  are  not  able  to  persuade  any  really 
good  men  :  thei'efore  you  open  the  doors  to  the  most  wicked  and  abandoned." 


46 

"  Some  of  thom  say  *  do  not  examine,  but  believe,  and  tby  faitb  sball 
save  thee." 

"  These  are  our  institutions,  say  they,  let  not  any  man  of  learning  come 
here,  nor  any  wise  man,  nor  any  man  of  prudence :  for  these  things  aro 
reckoned  evil  by  us.  But  whoever  is  uidearned,  ignorant,  and  silly,  let  bim 
come  without  fear  !  Thus  they  own  that  they  can  gain  only  the  foolisli,  tho 
vulgar,  the  stupid  slaves,  women,  and  children." 

"  At  first,  when  they  were  but  few,  they  agreed.  But  when  they  became 
a  multitude,  they  were  rent,  again  and  again,  and  each  will  have  their  owa 
factions  :  for  factious  spirits  they  had  from  the  beginning." 

"  All  wise  men  are  excluded  from  the  doctrine  of  their  faith  ;  they  call 
to  it  only  fools,  and  men  of  a  servile  spirit." 

"  The  preachers  of  their  divine  word  only  attempt  to  persuade  silly, 
mean,  senseless  persons,  slaves,  women,  and  children.  What  harm  is  there 
in  being  well-informed  ;  and  both  in  being,  and  appearing  a  man  of 
knowledge  ?  What  obstacle  can  this  be  to  the  knowledge  of  God  ?  -Must  it 
not  be  an  advantage  ?" 

"  We  see  these  Itinerants  shewing  readily  their  tricks  to  the  vulgar,  but 
not  approaching  tho  assemblies  of  wise  men,  nor  daring  there  to  show 
themselves.  But  wherever  they  see  boys,  a  crowd  of  slaves,  and  ignorant 
men,  there  they  thrust  in  themselves,  and  show  oflT  their  doctrine." 

"  You  may  see  weavers,  tailOrs,  and  fidlers,  illiterate  and  rustic  men, 
not  daring  to  utter  a  word  before  persons  of  age,  experience,  and 
respectability :  but  when  they  get  hold  of  boys  privately,  and  silly  women, 
they  recount  wonderful  things  ;  that  they  must  not  mind  their  fathei-s,  or 
their  tutors,  but  obey  them;  as  their  fathers,  or  guardians  are  quite  ignorant, 
and  in  the  dark  ;  but  themselves  alone  have  the  true  wisdom.  And  if  the 
children  obey  them,  they  pronounce  them  happy,  and  diiect  them  to  leave 
their  fathers,  and  tutors,  and  go  with  the  women,  and  their  play -fellows, 
into  the  chambers  of  the  females,  or  into  a  tailor's,  or  fuller's  shop,  that 
they  may  learn  perfection." 

Celsus  compares  a  Christian  teacher  to  a  quack — "  who  promises  to  heal 
the  sick,  on  condition  that  they  keep  from  intelligent  practitioners,  lest  his 
ignorance  be  detected." 

"  If  one  sort  of  them  introduces  one  doctrine,  another  another,  and  all 
join  in  saying,  '  Believe  if  you  would  be  saved,  or  depart  : '  what  are  they  to 
do,  who  desire  really  to  be  saved  ?  Are  they  to  iloteimine  by  the  throw  of  a 
die,  where  they  are  to  turn  themselves,  or  which  of  these  demanders  of 
implicit  faith  they  are  to  believe?" 

Omitting  what  Celsus  says  reproachfully  of  the  moral  characters  of  the 
Apostles,  and  the  first  teachers  of  Christianity,  for  which  we  certainly  shall 
not  take  his  word :  it  is  easy  to  perceive  from  the  above  quotation?,  that  they 
had  more  success  among  simple,  and  credulous  people,  than  among  the 
intelligent,  and  well-informed.  Their  introductory  lesson  to  their  pupils, 
was,  "  Beleive,  but  do  not  examine  :"  and  their  succeeding  instructions  seem 
to  have  been  a  continued  repetition,  and  practice  of  the  dogma  of  implicit 
faith* 

*  Jerome,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  says,  that  "  The 
Church  of  Christ  was  not  gathered  from  the  Academy,  or  the  Lyceum,  but  from  tho 
lowest  of  the  people."  [Vili  Plebecula.J  And  Coecilius,in  Minutius  PVii.x,  says,  that 
the  Christian  assemblies  were  made  up  "  de  ultima  faeee  coUectis,  Imperitioribus,  et 
mulieribus  credulis  sexu.s  suae  facilitate  labentibu.s,"  i.  e.  "  that  they  consisted  of  the 
lowest  of  the  mob,  simple  and  unlearned  men,  and  credulous  women." 

The  president  of  a  province  b  introduced  by  Prudcntiua  as  thus  addressing  » 
martyr: — 


47 

CHAPTER  X. 

MISCELI.ANEOUS. 

In  Matthew,  ch.  v.  Jesus  says,  "  ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said,  'thou 
ahalt  love  thy  neighbour  and  hate  thine  enemy.'"  But  this  is  no  where  said 
in  the  Law,  or  the  Prophets ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  we  read  directly  the 
reverse.  For  it  is  written,  Ex.  xxiii.  "  If  thou  find  the  ox  of  thine  enemy,  or 
his  ass  going  astray,  thou  shalt  cei-tainly  bring  him  back  to  him."  "  If"  thou 
see'st  the  ass  of  him  that  hateth  thee,  lying  under  his  burden,  and  wouldest 
forbear  to  help  him,  thou  shalt  surely  help  him."  Again,  Levit.  xix.  "  Thou 
Bhalt  not  hate  thy  brother  in  thine  heart ;  rebuke  thy  neighbour,  nor  suffer 
sin  upon  him.  Thou  shalt  not  revenge,  nor  keep  anger,  (or  bear  any  grudge,) 
against  the  children  of  thy  people ;  but  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as 
thyself;  I  am  the  Lord."  So  also  in  Pi-ov.  xxxiv.  "  When  thine  enemy 
falleth,  do  not  triumph,  and  when  he  stumbleth,  let  not  thine  heart  exult." 
So  also  in  ch.  xxv.  "  If  thy  enemy  hunger,  give  him  food  ;  if  he  thirst,  give 
him  to  drink."  These  precepts  are  to  the  purpose,  and  are  practicable  ;  but 
this  command  of  Jesus,  "  Love  your  enemies"  if  by  loving  he  means,  "  do  them, 
good,"  it  is  commanded  in  the  above  passages  in  the  Hebrew  Law.  But  if  by 
*'  love."  he  means  to  look  upon  them  with  the  same  affection  that  we  feel  for 
those  who  love  us,  and  with  whom  we  are  connected  by  the  tenderest  ties  of 
nature,  and  friendship,  the  command  is  impracticable ;  and  the  fulflUinent  of  it 
contrary  to  nature,  and  those  very  instincts  given  us  by  our  Creator.  And 
therefore,  whoever  thinks  he  fulfills,  really  falfills  this  command,  does  in  fact 
play  the  hypocrite  unknown  to  himself;  for  though  we  can,  and  otight  to  do 
good  to  our  enemy,  yet  to  love  him  is  as  unnatural  as  to  hate  our  friends. 

In  Mark  ch.  ii.  25,  Jesus  says  to  the  Phai  isecs,  "  Have  ye  not  read  what 
David  did  when  he  hungered,  and  those  that  were  with  him.  How  that  he 
entered  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  in  the  time  of  Abiaihar  the  High  P  iest, 
and  did  eat  of  the  shew-broad,  &c."  See  the  same  also  in  Matthew,  ch.  xii. 
3.  Luke  vi.  3.  Now  hero  is  a  great  blunder  ;  for  this  thing  happened  in  the 
time  of  Achimelech,  not  in  the  time  of  Abiathar  ;  for  so  it  is  Mritten,  1  Sam. 
xxi.  "  And  David  came  to  Nob,  to  Achimelech  the  Priest,  &c."  And  in  the 
22d  chapter  it  is  said  that  Abiathar  was  his  son 

In  Luke  ch.  i.  26,  The  angel  Gabriel  is  said  to  have  come  from  God  to 
Mary,  when  she  was  yet  a  virgin,  espoused  to  Joseph,  who  was  of  ihe  house 
of  David,  and  announced  to  her  that  she  should  conceive,  and  bear  a  son, 
and  should  call  his  name  Jesus;  that  her  holy  off"spring  should  be  called  the 
Son  of  God,  and  that  God  should  give  unto  him  "  the  throne  of  David  his 
Father,  and  that  he  should  rule  the  house  of  Jacob  for  ever,  and  that  to  his 

"  Tu  qui  Doctor,  ait,  seris  novellum 
Commenti  genus,  ut  Leves  Puell^e, 
Lucos  destituuut,  Jovem  relinquant; 
Damnes,  si  sapias,  Anile  Dogma." 

The  Christian  Fathers  confess,  and  glory  in  it,  that  the  greater  part  of  their 
congregations  consisted  of  women  and  children,  slaves,  beggars,  and  vagabonds. 

The  Jewish  Christians  were,  as  apjiears  evidently  from  the  New  Testament, 
exceedingly  poor,  and  therefore  there  is  frequent  mention  made  of  contributions  for 
'*  the  poor  Saints  at  Jerusalem."  From  thence  it  was  that  the  Jewish  Christians  got 
the  name  of  Ebioniles,  i.  e.  Poor.  The  Jewish  Christian  Church  consisted  of  the 
dregs  of  the  Jewish  people,  simple  and  ignorant  men,  Samaritans,  &c.  No  person  in 
Judea  of  eminence,  or  learning,  appears  to  have  joined  the  sect  of  the  Nazarenes, 
except  Paul ;  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  they  gradually  dwindled  in  numher, 
and  became  extinct. — E. 


48 

kingdom  there  should  be  no  end."  Now  this  story  is  encumbered  with  many 
diflBculties,  which  I  shall  not  consider;  but  confine  myself  to  asking, 
Wherefore,  if  these  things  were  true,  did  not  the  Mother  of  Jesus  and  his 
brethren,  knowing  these  extraordinary  things,  obey  his  teachings.  For  it  is 
certain,  that  they  did  not  at  first  believe  him,  but,  as  appears  from  the  7th 
chap,  of  John,  derided  him.  Besides,  neither  did  his  mother  nor  his 
brethren,  when  they  came  to  the  house  where  ho  was  preaching  to  simple 
and  credulous  men,  come  for  the  purpose  of  being  edified,  but  "  to  lay  hold 
of  him,"  to  carry  him  home,  for  said  they  he  is  mad,  or  "  beside  himself," 
[Mark  iii.  24]  which  certainly  they  would  not  have  dared  to  do,  if  this  story 
of  Luke's  were  true.  For  their  mother  would  have  taught  them  of  his 
miraculous  conception,  and  extraordinary  character.  Moreover,  how  was  it 
that  God  did  not  give  him  tlie  throne  of  David,  as  was  promised  by  the 
Angel  to  his  Mother?  For  he  did  not  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David,  nor 
exei'cise  any  authority  in  Israel.  Moreover,  how  comes  it  that  David  is 
called  the  Father  of  Jesus,  since  Jesus  was  not  the  son  of  Joseph,  who, 
according  to  the  Evangelists  drew  his  origin  from  that  king.  Finally,  the 
saying"  that  to  his  kingdom  there  should  be  no  end,"  is  directly  contradicted 
by  Paul  in  the  1st  Epis.  to  the  Cor.  ch.  xv:  for  he  says  therein,  that  "  Jesus  shall 
render  up  his  kingdom  unto  the  Father,  and  be  himself  subject  unto  him." 
Here  you  see,  that  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  is  to  have  an  cntl ;  for  when  ho 
renders  up  his  kingdom  to  the  Father,  he  certainly  must  divest  himself  of 
his  authority.  How  then  can  it  be  said,  that  "  to  his  kingdom  there  shall 
be  no  end  ? 

Jesus  says,  John  v.  39,  "  And  the  Father  himself  which  hath  sent  me, 
hath  borne  witness  of  me  :  ye  have  neither  heard  his  voice  at  any  time,"  &c. 
But  how  docs  this  agree  with  Moses,  who  says,  Deut.  iv.  33,  "  Did  ever 
people  hear  the  voice  of  God  speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  fire,  as  thou  hast 
heard?" — '•'  And  we  heard  his  voice  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire  ;  we  have  seen 
this  day,  that  God  doth  talk  with  man,  and  he  liveth."     Deut.  v.  24. 

Luke,  ch.  4,  17,  "  And  they  gave  to  Jesus  the  Book  of  Isaiah  the 
Prophet,  and  he  opened  the  Book,  and  found  this  place,  where  it  was 
written, '  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  therefore  hath  he  anointed  me 
to  preach  the  Gospel;  to  the  poor  hath  he  sent  mc,  that  I  should  bind  up  the 
broken  in  heart,  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captives,  and  sight  to  the  blind  ;  that 
I  should  preach  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord.'  And  shutting  the  Book, 
he  gave  it  to  the  minister,  and  afterwards  addressed  tliem,  saying.  This  day 
is  this  Scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears."  Here  you  see  the  words  which  gave 
ofi^ence ;  and  by  turning  to  Is.  in  loco.  ch.  Ixi.  you  may  see  the  reason 
why  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth  arose  up  in  wrath  against  him.  For  1. 
these  words  alledged  in  Luke,  arc  somewhat  perverted  from  the  original  ia 
Isaiah ;  for  these  words,  "  and  sight  to  the  blind,"  are  not  in  Isaiah,  but  are 
inserted  in  Luke  for  purposes  very  obvious.  And  2.  he  neglects  the  words 
following,  "  and  the  day  of  vengeance  of  our  God,  and  of  consolation  to  all 
who  mourn.  To  give  consolation  to  the  mourners  of  Zion;  to  give  them 
beauty  instead  of  ashes,  and  the  oil  of  joy  instead  of  grief;  a  garment  of 
praise  instead  of  a  broken  heart,"  &c.  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  From  this 
it  is  very  clear,  that  this  prophecy  has  no  reference  to  Jesus :  but  Isaiah 
speaks  these  things  of  hinnelf;  and  tlie  words  "  the  Lord  hath  anointed  me," 
signify,  "  God  hath  chosen,  established  me  to  declare" — what  follows.  This 
exposition  of  anointing  is  confirmed  from  these  passages ; — 1  Kings,  xix  ch, 
"  Anoint  a  prophet  in  thy  stead,"  where  the  sense  is,  "  constitute  a  prophet  ia 
thy  place."  Again,  "  touch  not  mine  anointed  ones,  and  do  my  prophets  no 
harm,"  i.  e.  "  Touch  not  my  chosen  servants" ;  and  so  in  several  other 
places.     The  meaning,  therefore,  of  Isaiah  is,  that  God  had  appointed,  and 


49 

constituted"  film  a  pvopliet  to  announce  these  consolations  to  the  Israelites, 
who  were  to  be  in  captivity,  in  order  that  they  shouUl  not  dispair  of 
liberation ;  and  tliat  tiicy  should  have  hope,  when  they  read  those 
comfortable  words  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  Isaiah,  at  the  command  of  God. 
For  he  calls  the  subjects  of  his  message  "  the  broken  in  heart,"  "  the  captives," 
"  the  mourners  of  Zion,"  &e.  all  which  terms  are  applicable  onJj/  to  the 
Isi'aelites.  That  this  is  the  true  interpretation,  Avill  be  made  further  evident 
to  any  impartial  person,  by  reading  the  context  preceding,  and  following. 

Jo.  ch.  ii.  V.  18.  "  The  Jews  said  to  Jesus,  what  sign  showost  thou  to 
us,  that  thou  doest  these  things  ?  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them, 
Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up.  The  Jews 
answered,  saying,  forty  and  six  years  was  this  temple  in  building,  and  wilt 
thou  build  it  in  three  days  ?"  The  Jews  could  never  have  spoken  these 
words,  here  related  ;  for  the  temple  then  standing  was  built  by  Herod,  who 
reigned  but  thirty-seven  years,  and  built  it  in  eight  years.  This,  therefore, 
must  bo  a  blunder  of  the  Evangelist's. 

Jo.  xiii.  V.  21.  Jesus  says  to  his  Disciples,  '•'  a  new  commandment  I  give 
unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another.".  This  is  not  true,  for  the  love  of  man 
towards  his  neighbour,  was  not  a  new  precept,  but  at  least  as  ancient  as 
Moses,  who  gives  it,  Levit.  xix.  as  the  command  of  God,  "  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbour  as  thyself." 

Acts  vii.  V.  4.  "  When  he  (Abraham)  went  out  of  the  land  of  the 
Chaldees,  he  dwelt'  in  Charran  ;  from  thence  after  his  father  was  dead,  he  led 
him  into  this  land  in  which  ye  dwell."  This  directly  contradicts  the  chapter 
in  Genesis  where  the  storj-  of  Abraham's  leaving  Haran  is  related  ;  for  it  is 
certain  from  thence,  that  Abraham  left  his  father  Terah  in  Haran  alive,  when 
he  departed  thence.  And  he  did  not  die  till  many  years  afterwards. 
This  chronological  contradiction  has  given  much  trouble  to  Christian 
Commentators,  as  may  be  seen  in  Whitby,  Hammond,  &c.  &c. 

V.  14,  Stephen  says,  "  Jacob  therefore  descended  into  Egypt,  and  our 
Fathers,  and  there  died.  And  they  were  carried  to  Sichem,  and  buried  in 
the  sepulchre  which  Abraham  bought  from  the  Sons  of  Hemor  the  Father  of 
Sichem."  Here  is  another  blunder;  for  this  piece  of  land  was  not  purchased 
by  Abraham,  but  by  Jacob.  Gen.  xlix.  29 :  so  also  see  the  end  of  Joshua. 
But  it  is  evident,  that  Stephen  has  confounded  the  story  of  the  purchase 
of  the  field  of  ^lachpelah,  recorded  in  Gen.  xxiii.  with  the  circumstances 
related  concerning  the  pvn-chase  by  Jacob. 

In  V.  43  of  the  same  chapter,  there  is  another  disagreement  between 
Stephen's  quotation  from  Amos,  and  the  original.  [In  the  Acts  the  quotation 
is, — "  Yea,  ye  took  up  the  tabernacle  of  Moloch,  and  the  Star  of  your  God 
Remphan,  figui'es  which  ye  made  to  worship  them,  and  I  will  carry  you  away 
beyond  Babylon."  In  Amos,  ch. . v.  26 — "  But  yehave  borne  the  tabernacle  of 
Moloch  and  Chinn  your  images,  the  Star  of  your  God  which  ye  made,"  &c.] 

So  also  there  is  in  the  speech  of  James,  Acts  xv.  a  quotation  from  Amos, 
in  which  to  make  it  fit  the  subject,  (which  after  all  it  does  not  fit,)  is  the 
substitution  of  the  words,  "  the  remnant  of  men,"  for  the  words,  "  remnant 
of  Edom,"  as  it  is  in  the  original. 

All  these  mistakes,  besides  others  to  be  met  with  in  almost — I  was  going 
to  say  in  every  page,  of  these  Histories  of  Jesus  and  his  Apostles,  sufficiently 
show  how  superficial  was  the  acquaintance  of  these  men  with  the  Old 
Testament,  and  how  grossly,  either  through  design  or  ignorance,  they  have 
perverted  it.  Indeed  from  these  mistakes  alone,  I  should  be  led  strongly  to 
suspect,  that  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written  by  Gentiles,  as  I 
can  hardly  co'iiccive  that  any  Jew  could  have  quoted  his  Bible  in  such  a 
blundering  manner. 

G 


50 

CHAPTER  XI. 

ITHETHEB   THE  MOSAIC  LAW  BE   REPRESENTED  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT   AS  A    TEMPORABT^ 
OB    A    FERPETCAL    INSTITUTION. 

A  very  great  part  of  Dogmatic  Theology  among  Christians  is  founded 
upon  tho  notion  that  the  Jewish  Law  was  a  temporary  dispensation,  only  to 
exist  till  the  coming  of  Jesus,  when  it  was  to  be  superseded  by  a  more  perfect 
dispensation. 

On  the  contrary,  the  Jews  are  pursuaded  that  their  Law  is  of  perpetual 
obligation,  and  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  itself  is  hardly  more  offensive  to 
them,  and,  as  they  think,  more  contradictory  to  the  Scriptures,  than  the 
notion  of  the  abrogation  of  it.  JNow,  that  the  Jews  are  on  the  right  side  of 
this  question,  i.  e.,  arguing  from  the  Old  Testament,  I  shall  endeavour 
to  prove  by  several  arguments.  They  are  all  comprised  in  these  positions, 
1.  That  the  Mosaic  Institutions  are  most  solemnly,  and  i-epeatedly  declared 
to  be  perpetual ;  and  Ave  have  no  account  of  their  being  abrogated,  or  to  be 
abrogated  in  the  Old  Testament.  2.  They  are  declared  to  be  perpetual  by 
Jesus  himself,  and  were  adhered  to  by  the  twelve  apostles. 

1.  Nothing  can  be  more  expressly  asserted  in  the  Old  Testament  than 
the  perpetual  obligation  of  those  rites  which  were  to  distinguish  the  Jews 
from  other  nations.  It  appears,  for  instance,  (from  the  17th  ch.  of  Genesis,^  in 
the  tenor  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  that  circumcision  was  to 
distinguish  his  posterity,  to  the  end  of  time.  It  is  called  "  an  everlasting 
covenant"  to  be  kept  by  his  posterity  through  all  their  generations.  See  the 
ch.  where  the  condition  of  the  covenant  is,  that  God  would  give  to  Abraham 
and  his  posterity,  the  perpetual  inheritance  of  the  promised  laud  with 
■whatever  privileges  were  implied  in  his  being  their  God,  on  condition  that 
their  male  children  were  circumcised  in  testimony  of  putting  themselves 
under  that  covenant.  There  is  no  limitation  with  respect  to  time;  nay  it  is 
expressly  said  that  the  convenant  should  be  perpetual. 

The  ordinance  of  the  Passover  is  also  said  to  be  perpetual,  Ex.  xii.  14, 
&c.  "  And  this  day  shall  be  unto  you  for  a  memorial,  and  you  shall  keep  it 
as  a  feast  to  the  Lord  throughout  your  generations.  You  shall  keep  it  a  feast 
by  an  ordinance  for  ever."  This  is  repeated  afterwards,  and  the  observance 
of  this  rite  is  confined  to  Israelites,  Proselytes,  and  slaves  who  should 
be  circumcised,  v.  48. 

The  observance  of  the  Sabbath  was  never  to  be  discontinued,  Ex.  xxxi.  16. 
«  Wherefore  the  children  of  Israel  shall  keep  the  Sabbath  throughout  their 
generations,  for  a  perpetual  covenant.  It  is  a  sign  between  me  and  the 
children  of  Israel  yb>-  ever." 

The  appointment  of  the  Family  of  Aaron  to  be  Priests,  was  to  continue 
as  long  as  the  Israelites  should  be  a  nation.     See  Lev.  vii.  35. 

The  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  to  hejbr'ever,  Lev.  xxiii.  41.  '•'  It  shall  be 
a  statute  for  ever,  in  your  generations."  The  observance  of  this  Festival 
is  particularly  mentioned  in  the  prophecies,  which  foretell  a  future  settlement 
of  the  Jews  in  their  own  land,  as  obligatory  on  all  the  world  ;  as  if  an  union 
of  worship  at  Jerusalem  Avas  to  be,  according  to  them,  effected  among 
all  nations  by  the  united  observance  of  this  Festival  there,  see  Zech. 
14  ;  Avhat  he  there  says  is  confirmed  by  what  Isaiah  prophecied  concerning 
the  same  period.  Is.  2.  '•  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  that 
the  mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  bo  established  in  the  top  of 
the  mountains,  and  shall  he  exalted  above  the  hills,  and  all  stations  shall  flow 
unto  it.  And  many  people  shall  go,  and  say.  Come  ye,  and  let  us  go  up  to 
the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  to  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob,  and  He 


51 

will  teach  us  of  his  ways,  and  we  will  walk  in  his  paths.  For  out  of  Zion  shall 
go  forth  the  Law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem.  And  he 
shall  judge  among  the  nations,  and  rebuke  many  people,  and  they  shall  beat 
their  swords  into  ploughshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning  hooks.  Nation 
shall  not  lift  up  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any 
more." 

With  respect  to  all  the  Laws  of  Moses,  it  is  evident  from  the  manner  in 
which  they  were  promulgated,  that  they  were  intended  to  be  of  perpetual 
obligation  upon  the  Hebrew  nation,  and  that  by  the  observance  of  them  they 
were  to  be  distinguished  from  the  other  nations,  see  Deut.  xxvi.  16. 

The  observance  of  their  peculiar  Laws  was  the  express  condition 
on  which  the  Israelites  were  to  continue  in  possession  of  the  promised  land  ; 
and  though  on  account  of  their  disobedience  they  were  to  be  driven  out  of 
it,  they  had  the  strongest  assurances  given  them  that  they  should  never  be 
utterly  destroyed,  like  many  other  nations  who  should  oppress  them ;  but 
that  on  their  repentance,  God  would  gather  them  from  the  remote  parts  of 
the  world,  and  bi'ing  them  to  their  own  country  again.  And  both  Moses, 
and  the  later  Prophets  assure  them,  that  in  consequence  of  their  becoming 
obedient  to  God  in  all  things,  which  it  is  asserted  they  will,  (and  which  may 
be  the  natural  consequence  of  the  discipline  they  will  have  gone  through,) 
they  shall  be  continued  in  the  peaceable  enjoyment  of  the  land  of  promise, 
in  its  greatest  extent  to  the  end  of  time.  See  to  this  purpose  Deut.  iv.  25,  &c. ; 
also  Deut.  30,  where  it  is  thus  written. 

"  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  all  these  things  are  come  upon  thee,  the 
blessing  and  the  curse,  which  I  have  set  before  thee,  and  shalt  call  them  to 
mind  among  all  the  nations  whither  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  driven  thee ; 
and  shalt  return  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  shalt  obey  his  voice  according 
to  all  that  I  command  thee  this  day,  thou  and  thy  children,  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul ;  that,  then,  the  Lord  thy  God  will  turn  thy 
captivity,  and -have  compassion  upon  thee,  and  will  return,  and  gather  thee 
from  all  the  nations  whither  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  scattered  thee.  If  any  of 
thine  be  driven  out  unto  the  utmost  parts  of  heaven,  from  thence  will  the 
Lord  thy  God  gather  thee,  and  from  thence  will  he  fetch  thee.  And  the 
Lord  thy  God  will  bring  thee  unto  the  Land  which  thy  Fathers  possessed, 
and  thou  shalt  possess  it,  and  He  will  do  thee  good,  and  multiply  thee  above 
thy  Fathers.  And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thy  heart,  and  the 
heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all 
thy  soul,  that  thou  may  est  live ;  and  the  Lord  thy  God  will  put  all  these 
curses  upon  thine  enemies,  and  on  them  that  hate  thee,  which  persecuted 
thee.  And  thou  shalt  return,  and  obey  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  and  do  all  his 
commandments  ivhich  I  command  thee  this  day."  &;c. 

"  What  an  extent  of  pi'ophecy,  and  how  firm  a  faith  in  the  whole  of  ifc 
do  we  see  here!  (says  Dr.  Priestly.)  The  Israelites  were  not  then  in  the 
land  of  Canaan.  It  was  occupied  by  nations  far  more  numerous,  and  pow- 
erful than  they  ;  and  yet  it  is  distinctly  foretold  in  the  4th  ch.  that  they 
would  soon  take  possession  of  it,  and  multiply  in  it  :  and  that  afterwards 
they  would  offend  God  by  their  idolatry,  and  wickedness,  and  would  in  con- 
sequence of  it  be  driven  out  of  their  country  ;  and  without  being  exterminated 
or  lost,  be  scattered  among  the  nations  of  the  world ;  that  by  this 
dispersion,  and  their  calamities,  they  would  at  length  be  reformed,  and 
restored  to  the  divine  favour,  and  that  then  (as  in  the  quotation)  in  the  latter 
days  they  would  be  gathered  from  all  nations,  and  restored  to  their  own 
country,  when  they  would  observe  all  the  laws  which  were  then  prescribed  to 
them.  Past  history,  and  present  appearances,  correspond  with  such  wonder- 
ful exactness  to  what  has  been  fulfilled  of  this  prophecy,  that  we  can  have  no 


52 

doubt  with  respect  to  the  complete  accomplishment  of  what  remains  to  be 
fulfilled  of  it." 

What  was  first  announced  by  Moses,  is  repeated  by  Isaiah  and  other 
prophets,  assuring  them  of  their  certain  return  wherever  dispersed,  to  their 
own  land  in  the  latter  da^/s ;  and  that  they  should  have  the  undisturbed 
possession  of  it  to  the  end  of  time. 

It  has  been  objected,  that  the  term  "for  ever"  is  not  always  to  be  under- 
stood in  its  greatest  extent,  but  is  to  bo  interpreted  according  to  circum- 
stances. This  for  the  sake  of  saving  time  I  will  acknowledge.  But  the 
circumstances  in  which  this  phrase  is  used  in  the  passages  already  adduced, 
and  in  a  number  of  others  of  similar  import  which  might  be  adduced,  clearly 
indicate,  that  it  is  to  be  understood  in  those  passages  to  mean  a  period  aa 
long  as  tlie  duration  of  the  IsraeUtlsh  nation,  which  elsewhere  is  said  to  continue 
to  tlie  end  of  the  world. 

For  this  reason,  among  others,  this  final  return  of  the  Jews  from  their 
present  dispersed  state,  cannot  at  any  rate  be  said  to  have  been  accomplished 
at  their  return  from  the  Babj-lonish  captivity. 

For  that  captivity  was  not  by  any  means  such  a  total  dispersion  of  the 
people  among  all  nations,  as  Rloses,  and  the  later  prophets  have  foretold. 
Nor  does  their  possession  of  the  country  subsequent  to  it,  at  all  correspond 
to  that  state  of  peace,  and  prosperity,  which  was  promised  to  succeed  this 
final  return. 

Figures  of  speech  must,  no  doubt,  be  allowed  for.  But  if  the  whole  of 
the  Jewish  polity  was  to  terminate  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus, 
(as  is  maintained  by  Christians,)  while  the  world  is  still  to  continue,  the 
magnificent  promises  made  to  Abraham,  antl  his  posterity,  and  to  the 
nation,  in  general,  afterwards,  have  never  had  any  proper  accomplishment  at 
all.  Because  with  respect  to  external  prosperity,  which  is  contained  in  the 
promises,  many  nations  have  hitherto  been  more  distinguished  by  God,  than 
the  Jews.  Hitherto  the  posterity  of  Ishmael  has  had  a  much  happier  lot 
than  that  of  Isaac.  To  say,  as  Christians  do,  that  these  prophecies  have  had 
a  spiritual  accomplishment  in  the  spread  of  the  Gospel,  when  there  is 
nothing  in  the  phraseology  in  which  the  promises  are  expressed,  that  could 
possibly  suggest  any  such  ideas,  nay,  when  the  promise  itself  in  the  most 
definite  language  expresses  the  contraiy,  is  so  arbitrary  a  construction  as 
nothing  can  warrant.  By  this  mode  of  interpretation,  any  event  may  be  said 
to  be  the  fulfillment  of  any  prophecy  ichatever. 

Besides,  it  is  perfectly  evident,  that  these  prophecies,  whether  they 
vjill  be  fulfilled,  or  not,  cannot  yet  have  been  fulfilled.  For  all  the  calamity 
that  was  ever  to  befall  the  Jewish  nation  is  expressly  said  to  bear  no  sensible 
proportion  to  their  subsequent  prosperity  :  whereas,  their  prosperity  has 
hitherto  borne  a  small  proportion  to  their  calamity ;  so  that  had  Abraham 
really  foreseen  the  fate  of  his  posterity,  he  would  on  this  idea,  have  had  little 
reason  to  rejoice  in  the  prospect. 

It  may  be  said,  that  the  prosperity  of  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  was 
to  depend  on  a  condition,  viz.,  their  obedience,  and  that  this  condition  was  not 
fulfilled.  But,  besides  that  the  Divine  Being  must  have  foreseen  this 
circumstance,  and  therefore  must  have  known  that  he  was  only  tantalizing 
Abraham  with  a  promise  which  would  never  be  accomplished  ;  this 
disobedience,  and  the  consequences  of  it  are  expressly  mentioned  by  Moses, 
and  the  other  Prophets,  only  as  a  temporary  thing,  and  what  was  to  be  suc- 
ceeded by  an  effectual  repentance,  and  perpetual  obedience,  and  prosperity. 

Among  others,  let  the  following  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (in  which  the  future 
security  of  Israel  is  compared  to  the  security  of  the  world  from  a  second 
deluge)  be  considered,  and  let  any  impartial  person  say,  whether  the  language 


53 

does  not  necessarily  lead  those  who  believe  the  Old  Testament,  to  tho 
expectation  of  a  much  more  durable  state  of  Glory,  and  Happiness,  than  has, 
as  yet,  fallen  to  the  lot  of  the  posterity  of  Abraham. 

Is.  54,  7.  '•'  For  a  small  moment  have  I  forsaken  thee,  but  with  great 
mercies  will  I  gather  thee.  In  a  little  wrath  I  hid  my  face  from  thee  for  a 
moment,  but  with  everlasting  kindness  will  I  have  mercy  on  thee,  saith  the 
Lord,  thy  Redeemer.  For  this  is  as  the  waters  of  Noah  unto  me.  For  as  I 
have  sworn  that  the  waters  of  Noah  should  no  more  go  over  the  earth,  so 
have  I  sworn,  that  I  would  not  be  wroth  with  thee,  nor  rebuke  thee.  For  the 
mountains  shall  [or  "may  "]  depart,  and  the  hills  be  removed,  but  my  kind- 
ness shall  not  depart  from  thee,  neither  shall  the  covenant  of  my  peace  be 
removed,  saith  the  Lord  that  hath  mercy  on  thee. — All  thy  children  shall 
be  taught  of  the  Lord,  and  great  shall  be  the  peace  of  thy  children.  lu 
righteousness  shalt  thou  be  established.  Thou  shalt  be  far  from  oppression, 
for  thou  shalt  not  fear ;  and  from  terror,  for  it  shall  not  come  nigh  thee.  No 
weapon  formed  against  thee,  shall  prosper,  and  every  tongue  that  shall  rise 
against  thee  in  judgment,  thou  shalt  condemn.  This  is  the  heritage  of  the 
servants  of  the  Lord,  and  their  righteousness  is  of  me,  saith  the  Lord." 

Here,  as  also  in  Moses,  and  other  Prophets,  an  establishment  in 
righteousness  is  promised  to  the  Israelites,  such  as  shall  secure  their  future 
prosperity ;  and  this  promise  has  not  yet  been  fulfilled.  The  promise  of 
future  virtue  as  connected  with  their  future  happiness,  is  also  clearly  expressed 
in  Jer.  ch.  iii.  18. 

Had  the  Jewish  nation  become  extinct,  or  likely  to  become  so,  it  might, 
with  some  plausibility,  have  been  said  by  Christians,  that  the  purposes  of  God 
concerning  them  were  actually  fulfilled,  and,  therefore,  that  the  words  of  the 
promise  must  have  had  some  other  signification  than  that  which  was  most 
obvious.  But  the  Jews  are  as  much  a  distinct  people  as  they  ever  were,  and 
therefore  seem  reserved  for  some  future  strange  destination. 

On  the  whole,  it  must  be  allowed,  that  the  settlement  of  Israel  in  the  land 
of  Canaan,  foretold  with  such  emphasis  by  the  Prophets,  is  a  settlement  which 
has  not  yet  taken  place,  but  may  take  place  in  that  period  so  frequently,  and 
so  emphatically,  distinguished  by  the  title  of  '•  the  latter  days  ;"  and  therefore 
that  whatever  is  said  of  Jewish  customs,  or  modes  of  worship  in  "  the  latter 
days"  is  a,  proofof  the  meant  restoration  of  their  ancient  religious  rites. 

That  the  institutions  of  the  Mosaic  Law  are  to  be  continued  on  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews  to  their  own  land  after  their  utter  dispersion,  is 
asserted  by  Moses  himself  in  one  of  the  passages  already  quoted ;  but  is  more 
clearly  expressed  by  the  subsequent  Prophets.  In  some  of  their  prophecies, 
particular  mention  is  made  of  the  observance  of  Jewish  festivals,  and  of 
sacrifices ;  and  in  Ezeehiel  we  find  a  description  of  a  magnificejit  Temple, 
which  being  closely  connected  with  his  prophecy  of  the  future  happy  state  of 
the  Israelites  in  their  own  land,  cannot  be  understood  of  any  other  than  a 
Temple  which  is  then,  according  to  the  Hebrew  Prophets,  to  bo  reai-ed  with 
greater  magnificence  than  ever.  Mention  is  also  made  of  '•  the  Glory  of  the, 
Lord,"  or  that  effulgent  Shechinah  wliich  was  the  symbol  of  the  divine 
presence,  filling  this  Temple,  as  it  did  that  of  Solomon. 

Ezech.  xliii.  1,  &c.  "  Afterward  he  brought  me  to  the  gate,  even  the 
gate  that  looketh  toward  the  East :  and  behold  the  glory  of  the  Lord  came 
from  the  way  of  the  East,  and  his  voice  was  like  the  noise  of  many  waters, 
and  the  Earth  shined  with  his  Glory. — And  the  Glory  of  the  Lord  came  into 
the  house  by  the  way  of  the  gate,  whose  prospect  is  toward  the  East.  So  the 
Spirit  took  me  up,  and  brought  me  into  the  inner  court,  and  behold  the 
Glory  of  the  Lord  filled  the  house.— And  he  said  unto  me.  Son  of  man,  the 
place  of  my  Throne,  and  the  place  of  the  soles  of  my  feet,  where  I  will  dwell 


54 

ia  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel ybr  ever,  and  my  holy  name  shall  the 
house  of  Israel  no  more  defile,"  &c. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  same  chapter  we  read  an  account  of  the  dedication 
of  this  new  Temple  hy  sacrifices ;  and  particular  directions  are  given  in  the 
succeeding  chapters  for  the  Priests,  and  for  the  Prince.  If,  therefore,  there 
be  any  truth  in  these  prophecies,  the  Jews  ar£  not  only  to  return  to  their 
own  country,  and  to  be  distinguished  among  the  nations,  but  are  to  rebuild 
the  Temple,  and  to  restoi'e  the  ancient  worship. 

Haviftg  proved  that  the  Old  Testament  declares  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Mosaic  Law,  I  proceed,  2dly,  to  prove  that  it  is  declared  to  be  perpetual 
by  Jesus  himself. 

But  before  I  adduce  my  proofs,  I  beg  leave  to  premise,  that  when 
any  Law  is  solemnly  enacted,  we  expect  that  the  abrogation  of  it  should 
be  equally  solemn,  and  express,  in  order  that  no  room  for  dispute  may  remain 
upon  the  subject.  Accordingly,  it  is  the  custom,  I  believe,  in  all  countries, 
not  to  make  any  new  Law,  contradictory  to  another  before  subsisting,  without 
2k  previous  express  abrogation  of  the  old  one.  And  certainly  it  appears  to  me 
a  strange  notion  to  suppose,  that  the  elaborate  and  noble  Law  given  from 
mount  Sinai  amidst  circumstances  unexampled,  awful,  and  tremendously 
magnificent,  and  believed  to  have  been  declared  by  the  voice  of  God  to  be  a 
perpetual  and  everlasting  Code,  should  vanish,  perish,  and  be  annihilated  by 
the  mere  dictum  of  twelve  fishermen ! ! 

But  the  fact  is  otherwise,  for  Jesus  was  so  far  from  teaching  the 
abrogation  of  that  law,  that  he  expressly  says — "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to 
destroy  the  law,  or  the  Prophets,  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill. 
For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot,  or  one  tittle 
shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled."  This  is  a  most  explicit 
declaration  that  not  the  smallest  punctilio  in  the  law  of  Moses  was  intended 
to  be  set  aside  by  the  Gospel.  Nay  more,  he  expressly  commanded  his 
disciples  to  the  same  purpose — "  The  Scribes  and  Pharisees  (says  he,)  sit  in 
Moses'  seat ;  all  •  therefore  whatsoever  they  command  you,  that  observe,  and 
do." 

It  is  said  in  answer  to  this  by  Christian  Divines,  that  his  discourse  relates 
to  things  of  a  moral  nature,  and  that  he  only  meant,  that  no  part  of  the 
Moral  Law  was  to  be  abolished.  But  besides  that  the  expression  is  general, 
there  could  be  no  occasion  to  make  so  solemn  a  declaration  against  what  he 
could  not  have  been  suspected  of  intending,  viz.  of  abolishing  the  moral  law. 
He  seems  in  his  discourse  to  have  had  in  view  the  additions  that  had  been 
made  to  the  law.     These  he  sets  aside,  but  no  part  of  the  original  law  itself. 

It  has  also  been  urged  that  by  fulfilling,  may  be  meant  such  an 
accomplishment  of  it  as  would  imply  the  superceding  of  it  when  the  purposes 
for  which  it  was  instituted  should  be  answered.  To  silence  this  explication 
it  will  be  sufficient  to  produce  a  few  out  of  many  passages  of  the  New 
Testament  where  the  term  fulfil  occurs  in  connexion  with  the  term  law. 
Thus  Paul  says,  Gal.  v.  14,  "  All  the  law  i?,  fulfilled  in  one  word,  even  in  this, 
thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself,"  and  again,  Rom.  xiii.  8,  "  He  that 
loveth  another,  hath  fulfilled  the  law."  But  certainly,  notwithstanding  this 
fulfillment  of  the  moral  law,  it  remains  in  as  full  force  as  ever. 

The  Apostles  understood  Jesus  to  mean  as  we  have  asserted.  For  it  is 
evident  from  the  Acts,  that  the  Christians  at  Jerusalem  were  zealous  in 
attachment  to  the  law  of  Moses ;  this  is  evident  from  their  surprise  at 
Peter's  conduct  with  regard  to  Cornelius  ;  and  in  the  dispute  about  imposing 
circumcision  upon  the  Gentiles ;  observe  there  was  no  dispute  about  its  being 
obligatory  upon  Jews. 

Paul  was  indeed  vehemently  accused  of  teaching  a  contrary  doctrine,  as 


55 

we  find  in  the  history  of  the  transactions  respecting  him  in  his  last  journey 
to  Jerusalem.  Acts  xxi.  21, "  They  (i.  e.  the  Christians)  are  informed  of  thee 
(says  James  to  Paul)  that  thou  teachest  all  the  Jews  which  are  among  the 
Gentiles,  to  forsake  Moses,  saying  that  they  ought  not  to  circumscise  their 
children,  neither  to  walk  after  the  custom."  Here  James  gives  Paul  to 
understand  that  he  considered  the  report  as  a  calumny,  and  accordingly,  to 
convince  the  Jewish  Christians  that  it  was  a  false  report,  he  advises  Paul  to 
be  at  charges  witli  some  Jewish  Christians,  who  were  under  a  vow  of 
Nazaritism,  (which  is  an  instance  in  point  to  prove  that  the  first  Christians 
kept  the  law,)  and  thus  publicly  manifest  that  he  himself  "  walked  orderly, 
and  kept  the  law."  Paul  complies  with  this  advice,  and  purified  himself  in 
the  temple,  and  did  what  was  done  in  like  cases  by  the  strictest  Jews.  He 
also  circumcised  Timothy,  who  waf  a  convert  to  Christianity,  because  he  was 
the  son  of  a  Jewish  Mother.  And  he  solemnly  declared  in  open  court.  Acts 
XXV.  8,  "  Against  the  law  of  the  Jews,  neither  against  the  Temple,  have  I 
oflfended  any  thing  at  all,"  and  again,  to  the  Jews  at  Rome,  Acts  xxviii.,  7,  he 
assures  them  that  "  he  had  done  nothing  against  the  people,  or  the  customs 
of  the  Fathers." 

But  scfme  men  will  say, "  did  not  Paul  expressly  teach  the  abrogation  of 
the  law,  in  his  Epistles,  especially  in  that  to  the  Galatians  ?"  I  answer, 
he  undoubtedly  did;  and  in  so  doing  he  contradicted  the  Old  Testament,  his 
master  Jesus,  the  twelve  Apostles,  and  himself  too.  But  how  can  this  be  ? 
I  answer,  it  is  none  of  my  concern  to  reconcile  the  conduct  of  Paul ;  or 
to  defend  his  equivocations.  It  is  pretty  clear,  that  he  did  not  dare  to 
preach  this  doctrine  at  Jerusalem.  He  confined  this  "  hidden  wisdom,"  to  the 
Gentiles.  To  the  Jews  he  became  as  a  Jew ;  and  to  the  uncircumcised  as  one 
uncircumcised,  he  was  "  all  things  to  all  men!"  and  for  this,  conduct  he  gives 
you  his  reason,  viz.  "  that  he  was  determined  at  any  rate  to  gain  some."  If 
this  be  double  dealing,  dissimulation,  and  equivocation,  I  cannot  help  it ;  it  is 
none  of  my  concern,  I  leave  it  to  the  Commentators,  and  the  reconciliators, 
the  disciples  of  Surenhusius ;  let  them  look  to  it ;  perhaps  they  can  hunt  up 
some  "  traditionary  rules  of  interpretation  among  the  Jews,"  that  will  help 
them  to  explain  the  matter. 

Lastly,  it  has  been  said  that  there  was  no  occasion  for  Jesus,  or  his 
Apostles  to  be  very  explicit  with  respect  to  the  abolition  of  the  laws  of 
Moses,  since  the  Temple  was  to  be  soon  destroyed,  when  the  Jewish  worship 
would  cease  of  course. 

This  argument,  flimsy  as  it  is,  is  nevertheless  the  instar  omniimi  of  the 
Christian  Divines  to  prove  the  abolishment  of  this  Law  :  (for  the  other 
arguments  adduced  by  them  as  prophecies  of  it  from  the  1  ch.  of  Isaiah,  and 
some  of  the  Psalms,  are  nothing  to  the  purpose  ;  they  being  merely 
declarations  of  God,  that  he  preferred  obedience  in  the  weightier  matters  of 
the  Law  ;  Justice,  Mercy,  and  Holiness,  to  ceremonial  observances ;  and  that 
repentance  was  of  more  avail  with  him  than  offering  thousands  of  rams,  and 
fed  beasts,)  and  this  argument  like  so  many  others,  when  weighed  in  the 
balance,  will  be  "  found  wanting." 

For,  as  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar  certainly  did 
not  abolish  the  Law,  so  neither  did  the  destruction  by  Titus,  do  it.  And  as  it 
would  be  notoriously  absurd  to  maintain  the  first,  so  it  is  equally  so  to 
maintain  the  last,  position.  Besides,  a  very  considerable  part  of  that  Law  can 
he,  and  for  these  seventeen  hundred  years,  has  been  kept  without  the  Temple. 
As  for  example,  circumcision,  distinction  of  meats,  and  many  others.  And 
when,  if  ever,  they  shall  return  to  their  own  land,  and  rebuild  the  Temple, 
they  will  then,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  observe  the  whole,  and  with 
greater  splendour  than  ever. 


56 
CHAPTER    XII. 

ON    THE    CHARACTER    OF    I'AVL    AND    UIS    M.\jr.NEB   OF    REASON'ING. 

As  Christians  lay  great  stress  upon  their  argument  for  the  truth  of  their 
Religion,  derived  from  the  supposed  miraculous  conversion  of  Paul ;  and 
since  almost  the  whole  of  Systematic  Christianity  is  huilt  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  Epistles  ascrihcd  to  him,  wo  shall  pay  a  little  more  attention  to  his 
character  and  writings. 

Paul  was  evidently  a  man  of  no  small  capacity,  a  fiery  temper,  great 
Buhtilty,  and  considerahly  well  versed  in  Jewish  Traditionary,  and  Cahbalistic 
Learning,  and  not  unacquainted  with  the  principles  of  the  Philosophy  called 
the  "  Oriental."  He  is  said  by  Luke  to  have  been  converted  to  Christianity 
by  a  splendid  apparition  of  Jesus,  who  struck  him  to  the  ground  by  the  glory 
of  his  appearance.  But  by  the  Jews  and  the  Nazarcne  Christians,  he  is 
represented  as  having  been  converted  to  Christianity  from  a  different  cause. 
They  say  that  being  a  man  of  tried  abilities  and  of  some  note,  he  demanded 
the  High  Priest's  daughter  in  marriage,  and  being  refused,  his  rash  and 
rageful  temper,  and  a  desire  of  revenge,  drove  him  to  join  the  "  sect  of  tho 
Nazarenes,"  at  that  time  beginning  to  become  troublesome  to  the  Sanhedrim. 
However  this  may  be,  whether  ho  became  a  Cln-istian  from  cojiviction,  or 
from  ambition ;  it  is  certain  from  the  Acts  that  he  always  was  considered  by 
the  Jewish  Christians,  as  a  suspected  character ;  and  it  is  evident  that  he 
taught  a  different  doctrine  from  that  promulgated  by  the  twelve  apostles. 
And  this  was  the  true  cause  of  the  great  difficulty  he  was  evidently  under  of 
keeping  steady  to  him,  his  Gentile  converts.  For  it  is  evident  from  the 
Epistles  to  the  Galatiaus,  and  the  Corinthians,  that  the  Jewish  Christians 
represented  Paul  to  them  as  not  "  sound  in  tho  Faith,"  but  as  teaching 
a  dilferent  doctrine  from  that  of  the  Twelve,  and  so  influential  were  these 
representations,  that  Paul  had  the  greatest  difficulty  in  keeping  them  to  his 
System. 

That  thei'e  were  two  Parties,  or  Schools  in  the  first  Christian  church,  viz. 
the  adherents  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Disciples  of  Paid,  is  evident  from  the 
New  Testament,  and  has  been  fully,  and  unanswerably  j>^'oved  by  the  learned 
Semler,  the  greatest  scholar  certainly  in  Christian  Antiquities,  that  ever  lived. 
The  knowledge  of  this  secret,  accounts  for  the  diff"erent  conduct  of  Paul  when 
among  his  Gentile  converts,  from  that  which  he  pursued  when  with  the 
the  apostles  at  Jerusalem.  He  had  a  difficult  part  to  act,  and  he  managed 
admirably.  He  was  indeed,  as  he  says,  himself,  "  all  things  to  all  men,"  a 
Jew  with  the  Jews,  and  as-one  uncircumcise(/  among  the  uncircumcised.  To 
the  Jews,  he  asserted,  that  he  "  taught  nothing  contrary  to  the  Law,  and  the 
Prophets,"  and  when  brought  before  the  Sanhedrim  for  teaching  otherwise 
than  he  said,  he  dexterously  got  himself  out  of  tribulation,  by  throwing 
a  bone  of  contention  among  the  Council,  and  setting  his  Judges  together  by 
the  ears.  "  And  when  Pfiul  perceived  that  the  one  part  (of  the  Council)  were 
Sadducees,  and  the  other,  Pharisees,  he  cried  out  in  the  Council :  Brethren,  / 
<im  a  Pharisee,  and  the  son  of  a  Pharisee ;  concerning  the  hope  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  I  am  noio  judged.  And  when  he  had  said  this,  a 
dissension  arose  between  the  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees,  and  the  multitude 
was  divided.  For  the  Sadducees  say  there  is  no  resurrection,  neither  angel, 
nor  spirit ;  but  the  Pharisees  confess  both.  And  there  was  a  great  cxy,  and 
the  Scribes  that  were  on  the  part  of  the  Pharisees,  arose  and  strove,  saying, 
"  We  find  no  evil  in  this  man,"  &c.  This,  indeed,  was  a  masterly  manoeuvre, 
and  produced  the  desired  effect;  and  Paul  by  this  shows  his  knowledge  of 


67 

tTie  htmian  heart,  in  trusting  to  make  his  judges  forget  what  he  was  accused 
of,  by  making  an  appeal  to  their  sectarian  passions.  For,  in  truth,  he  was 
not  accused  concerning  his  opinion  about  "  the  hope,  and  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead  ;"  but  for  the  following  cause,  as  his  accusers  vociferated  (in  the 
xxi.  ch.)  when  they  seized  him  in  the  Temple,  "Men  of  Israel,  Help!  This 
is  the  man,  who  teacheth  all  men  every  where  against  the  people,  and  tJie 
Law,  and  this  place." 

These  strokes  of  character  enable  us  to  understand  the  man ;  and  I 
shall  now  go  into  the  consideration  of  some  of  the  arguments  he  has 
deduced  from  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  in  support  of  his  opinions ; 
after  premising,  that  the  truth  of  the  story  of  the  manner  of  his  conversion 
depends  entirely  upon  his  own  assertion;  and  whether  his  credibility  be 
absolutely  unimpeachable,  can  be  easily  determined  by  an  impartial  conside- 
ration of  the  history  of  his  conduct  already  mentioned.  I  will  only  add  upon 
this  subject,  that  in  telling  the  story  of  his  conversion,  he  ought  to  have  had 
a  better  memory ;  for  in  telling  it  once  in  xxvi.  ch.  of  Acts,  he  says,  in 
describing  his  miraculous  vision,  that  "  those  that  wei'e  with  me,  saw  indeed 
the  light,  and  were  afraid,  but  heard  not  the  words  of  him  that  spake  to  me  ;" 
and  thus  he  directly  contradicts  the  story  of  it  recorded  in  Acts  ix.,  where  it 
is  said,  "that  the  men  who  journeyed  with  him  stood  speechless,  hearing  the 
voice,  but  seeing  no  one." 

In  the  9th  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  v.  24,  he  thus  proves 
that  the  Old  Testament  prophecied  of  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  to  the 
Gospel — "  Even  us  whom  he  hath  called,  not  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of 
the  Gentiles,  as  he  saith  also  in  Hosea  "  I  will  call  them  my  people,  which 
were  not  my  people;  and  her  beloved,  which  was  not  beloved.  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  that  in  the  place  where  it  was  said  unto  them,  ye  are  not  my 
people,  there  shall  they  be  called  the  sons  of  the  living  God." — Is  not  this 
to  the  purpose  ?  yet,  in  applying  this  passage  to  the  Gentiles,  Paul  has  xoilfidly, 
(yes  wilfully,  for  Paul  was  a  learned  man,  and  knew  better)  perverted  the 
original  from  its  proper  reference,  and  has  passed  upon  his  simple  converts, 
who  did  not  know  so  much  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  as  he  did,  a  prophecy 
relating  entirely  to  the  Jews,  as  referring  to  the  Oentiles  !  !  By  turning  to 
.Hbsea,  Reader,  you  will  find  this  to  be  verily  the  case  ;  here  is  the  passage, 
"  Then  said  God,  call  his  name  (Hosea's  son)  Loammi,  for  ye  (the  Israelites) 
are  not  my  people,  and  I  will  not  be  your  God,  yet  the  number  oithe  children 
of  Israel  shall  be  as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  which  cannot  be  measured,  nor 
numbered.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  in  the  place  where  it  was  said 
unto  them,  ye  are  not  my  people,  there  shall  it  be  said  unto  them,  yo  are  the 
sons  of  the  living  God."     Hosea  chapter  i. 

Again  v.  33.  "  As  it  is  written.  Behold  I  lay  in  Zion  a  stone  of  stumbling, 
and  a  rock  of  offence,  and  every  one  who  believeth  in  him  shall  not  be 
ashamed.".  Here  Paul  has  pieced  two  passages  together,  which  in  the  original 
are  disconnected.  For  in  the  8th  chapter  of  Isaiah  it  is  written,  "  Sanctify  the 
Lord  of  Hosts  himself,  and  let  him  be  your  fear,  and  let  him  be  your  dread. 
And  he  shall  be  for  a  sanctuary  ;  but  for  a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  for  a  roCK 
of  offence,  to  both  the  houses  of  Israel ;  for  a  gin,  and  for  a  snare  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem."  And  in  the  28th  chapter  it  is  written,  "there- 
fore, thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  behold  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation,  a  stone, 
a  tried  stone,  a  precious  coi'ner  stone,  a  sure  foundation,  he  that  believeth 
ifehall  not  be  ashamed,"  (or  disappointed  )  Here  you  see,  reader,  that  he 
jams  two  distant  passages  together  no  ways  related  ;  and  alters  some 
words,  and  applies  them  to  Jesus,  with  whom,  it  appears  from  the  context  of 
Isaiah,  they  have  no  concern. 

Ch.  X.  V.  6.     "  The  scripture  saith,  *  say  not  in  thine  heart,  who  shall 

H 


58 

ascend  into  Heaven  ?'  (that  is,  that  he  may  bring  down  Jesus  from  above.)' 
Again,  '  who  shall  descend  into  the  abyss  ?'  (that  is,  that  he  may  bring  up 
Jesus  from  the  dead.)  But  what  saith  it  ?  '  The  word  is  very  nigh  unto 
thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart.'  (that  is  the  word  of  Faith  which 
we  speak.)  For  if  thou  confess  Jesus  with  thy  mouth,  and  believe  in  thino 
heart  that  God  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved  "  Here  you 
will  see  another  instance  of  misapplication  of  Scripture  by  Paul,  in  order  to 
dazzle  the  eyes  of  his  simple  and  credulous  converts,  for  let  any  one  look  at 
the  place  in  the  Scripture  whence  the  quotation  is  taken,  and  he  will 
immediately  see  the  inapplicability  of  the  words,  and  the  adulteration  of 
those  of  the  original,  in  order  to  make  them  apply.  For  the  Scripture 
quoted  speaks  of,  and  refers  to  penitence,  and  not  at  all  about  believing  on, 
or  bringing  down  Jesus  from  Heaven,  or  up  from  the  dead  ;  for  here  are  the 
■words,  Deut.  30. — "  If  thou  be  converted  to  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  mind." — Immediately  is  subjoined — "  For  this  Law 
which  I  command  you  this  day  is  not  far  from  thee  ;  neither  is  it  afar  off. 
it  is  not  in  Heaven,  that  thou  shouldst  say,  who  shall  ascend  for  us  into 
Heaven,  that  he  may  bring  it  unto  us,  and  declare  it  to  us  that  we  might  do 
it,"  &c.  The  sense  of  the  whole  is,  that  God  wills  us  to  repent  of  sin  ;  and 
that  you  may  know  when  you  have  sinned,  you  have  only  to  look  at  his 
Laiv,  which  is  not  in  Heaven,  nor  afar  off,  but  is  put  in  your  own  hands, 
and  is  perfectly  familiar  with  your  heart,  and  lips. 

1  Cor,  ch.  V.  1.  Paul  accuses  one  of  the  Christians  of  the  church  of 
Corinth  of  the  crime  of  incest,  because  he  had  married  his  step-mother,  and 
orders  them  to  excommunicate  him.  But  Paul,  in  all  his  Epistles  and 
teachings  to  the  Gentiles,  pronounced  them  free  from  the  Law  of  Moses. 
Wherefore  then  for  the  violation  of  one  of  those  Laws  interdicting  such  a 
marriage,  does  he  so  vehemently  blame  them  ?  Such  a  marriage  is  not 
forbidden  in  the  Gospel :  it  was  forbidden  to  them  no  where  in  the  Scriptures 
but  in  the  Mosaic  Code.  Therefore,  Paul  must  have  founded  his  judgment 
against  the  criminal  upon  the  dictum  of  that  law  in  such  cases.  Paul  puts 
the  man  under  a  curse ;  and  it  is  the  Mosaic  Law  which  says,  Deut.  27, 
"  Cursed  is  he  who  lieth  with  his  father's  wife."  It  seems,  therefore,  that 
Jesus  did  not  deliver  his  followers  from  "  the  curse  of  the  law"  as  Paul  taught 
them  it  did  in  Gal.  iii.  13. 

1  Cor.  ch.  X.  : — "And  let  us  not  pollute  ourselves  with  fornication,  as  some 
of  them  were  polluted,  and  fell  in  one  day  to  the  number  of  twenty -three  thou- 
sand."   Here  is  a  blunder,  for  it  is  written  "  twenty-four  thousand." — Num.  25, 

Gal.  iii.,  13,  Paul  says,  '-Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us ;  for  it  is  written,  cursed  is  every  one  that 
hangeth  on  a  tree."  What  he  says  of  the  Christ,  or  the  Messiah  redeeming 
from  the  curses  written  in  the  law,  that  by  no  means  agrees  with  truth ;  for 
no  Jew  can  be  freed  from  the  curses  of  the  law,  but  by  repenting  of  his  sins, 
and  becoming  obedient  to  it.  And  in  alledging  the  words  "  cursed  is  every 
one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree,"  from  Deut.  xxi.,  he,  as  usual,  applies  them 
irrelevantly. 

Paul  says,  Gal.  iii ,  10  : — "For  as  many  as  are  of  the  works  of  the  law, 
are  under  the  curse  ;  for  it  is  written,  Deut.  xxvii.  26,  '  Cursed  is  every  one 
that  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them.'" 
And  he  interprets  this  to  mean  that  all  mankind,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  are 
liable  to  damnation,  (except  those  who  are  saved  by  faith)  because  no  m&n 
ever  did  continue  in  all  things  written  in  the  law.  Now,  in  the  first  place  I 
would  observe,  that  Paul  has  inserted  the  word  "all"  in  the  passage 
he  quotes  from  Deuteronomy,  (in  the  original  of  which  it  is  not)  in  order 
to  make  it  support  his  system ;  for  the  luhole  of  his  argument  is  built  upon 


59 

this  one  surreptitiously  inserted  word.  2.  The  words  according  to  the 
original  are  simply  these  : — "  Cursed  is  he  that  confirmeth  not  the  words  of 
this  law  to  do  them  ;"  i.  e., — He  who  disobeys,  or  neglects  to  fulfil  the  com- 
mands of  the  law,  shall  be  under  the  curse  denounced  upon  the  disobedient. 
But  who  would  conclude  from  this  that  repentance  would  not  remove  the 
curse  ?  Does  not  God  expressly  declare  in  the  xxx.  ch.  of  Deut.,  that  if  they 
repent,  the  curses  written  shall  be  removed  from  them  ?  And  have  we  not 
innumerable  instances  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  of  sinners,  and  trans- 
gressors of  this  very  law,  received  to  pardon  and  favour,  upon  repentance 
and  amendment  ?  So  that  this  argument  founded  upon  an  unwarrantable 
undeniable  interpolation,  and  supported  by  bad  logic,  is  every  way  had,  and 
insulting  to  God  and  his  (by  Paul  acknowledged)  word. 

Gal.  ch.  iii.  16 : — "  To  Abraham,  and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made. 
He  saith  not  '  and  to  seeds,'  (as  of  many)  but  as  of  one,  '  and  to  thy  seed* 
which  is  Christ."  Here  is  an  argument  which  one  would  think  too  far-fetched, 
even  for  Paul;  and  it  is  built  on  a  perversion  of  a  passage  from  Genisis, 
which  Paul,  bold  as  he  was  in  these  matters,  certainly  Avould  not  have 
ventured,  if  he  had  not  the  most  assured  confidence  in  the  blinking  credulity 
of  his  Galatian  converts.  His  argument  in  this  place  is  drawn  from  the  use 
of  the  woi'd  "seed"  in  the  singidar  number,  in  the  passage  of  Genisis,  from 
whence  he  quotes.  And  because  the  word  seed  is  in  the  singidar  number, 
he  tells  the  "foolish  Oalatians,"  as  he  justly  calls  them,  that  this  "  seed" 
must  mean  one  individual  (and  not  many,)  "which,"  says  he,  "is  Christ." 
Now,  let  us  look  at  the  xv.  ch.  of  Gen.,  from  whence  he  quotes,  and  we  shall 
see  the  force  of  this  singular  argument,  derived  from  the  use  of  the  singular 
number.  "And  He  (God)  brought  him  (Abraham)  forth  abroad,  and  said. 
Look  now  towards  heaven,  and  tell  the  stars  if  thou  be  able  to  number  them, 
and  He  said  unto  him,  so  shall  thy  seed  he. — And  He  said,  know  of  a  surety 
that  thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  that  is  not  theirs,  and  they  shall 
afiiict  them,  &c.,  afterwards  they  shall  come  out  with  great  substance. — In 
that  same  day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  saying,  unto  thy 
seed  have  I  given  this  land,"  &:c.  Again,  ch.  xxii.,  God  said  to  Abraham  by 
his  Angel,  "  I  will  multiply  thy  seed  as  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  as  the  sarid 
which  is  upon  the  sea  shore ;  and  thy  seed  shall  possess  the  gate  of  his  (or  its) 
enemies,  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed,  because 
thou  hast  obeyed  my  voice !  Reader,  what  do  you  think  now  of  Paul's 
argument  from  the  use  of  the  singular  number  ?  Which  is  most  to  be 
admired  ?  His  otFering  such  an  ai>guraent  to  the  Galatians ;  (for  being 
a  learned  man,  he  certainly  knew  that  the  argument  was  nought,)  or  their 
credulity  in  receiving  such  reasoning  as  Divine?  Really,  I  fear  there  is 
some  reason  for  admitting  as  true  what  Celsus  maliciously  says  of  the 
simplicity  of  the  Primitive  Christians,  if  Paul  could  with  impunity  feed  his 
"  spiritual  babes"  with  such  pap  as  this ! 

I  intended  to  have  concluded  this  subject,  by  bringing  under  examination 
some  of  the  arguments  and  quotations  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  but 
■upon  looking  over  that  Epistle,  and  contemplating  my  task,  I  confess  I 
shrink  from  it.  That  Epistle  is  so  replete  with  daring,  ridiculous,  and 
impious  applications  of  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  I  am  glad  to 
omit  it ;  and  I  think  after  the  specimens  which  have  been  already  brought 
forward,  that  my  reader  is  quite  as  much  satiated  as  myself.  I  will,  therefore, 
bring  forward  only  one  quotation,  which  is  alledged  in  that  Epistle  to  prove 
the  abolition  of  the  law  of  Moses  ;  and  as  for  the  rest,  I  content  myself  with 
referring  those  who  want  to  know  more  of  it,  to  the  pieces  written  by  the 
celebrated  Dr.  Priestley  upon  Paul's  arguments  in  general,  and  those  in  that 
Epistle  in  particular,  preserved  in  his  Theological  Repository,  where  he  will 


60 

gee  absurdity  in  reasoning,  and,  something  worse,  in  quotation,  exposed  in  a 
masterly  manner.  Indeed,  some  learned  Christians  are  so  sensible  of  tho 
insuperable  difficulties  attending  every  attempt  to  reconcile  that  Epistle  to 
the  Doctrine  of  inspiration,  or  even  to  common  sense,  that  they  avoid  the 
trouble,  by  denying  that  Paul  could  have  been  the  author  of  such  a  work, 
and  attribute  it  to  the  same,  or  a  similar,  hand,  with  that  which  forged  tho 
marvellous  Epistle  ascribed  to  Barnabas. 

The  quotation  brought  forward  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  to  provo 
the  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  the  substitution  of  a  new  one,  is  taken 
from  Jer.  xxxi.  31,  &c. — "Behold  the  days  come  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will 
make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Judah.  Not  according  to  the  covenant 
which  I  made  with  their  fathers,  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to 
bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  (which  my  covenant  they  brake, 
although  I  was  an  husband  unto  them,  saith  the  Lord  )  But  this  shall  be 
the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel.  After  those  days 
saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  tJieir 
liearts ;  and  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people ;  and  they  shall 
teach  no  more  every  man  his  neighbour,  saying  know  the  Lord,  for  they 
shall  all  know  me  from  the  least  of  them  unto  the  greatest  of  them,  saith  the 
Lord,  for  I  will  forgive  their  iniquity,  and  will  remember  their  sins  no  more." 
Upon  this  passage  the  author  of  the  Epistle  observes  "  in  that  he  saith  '  a 
iiew  covenant,'  he  hath  made  the  first  old ;"  and  he  sagely  concludes,  "  now 
that  which  decayeth,  and  waxeth  old,  is  ready  to  vanish  away  !  !"  and  takes 
the  quotation  to  be  a  prophecy  of  the  abolition  of  the  old  law,  and  tho 
introduction  of  the  Gospel  Dispensation. 

Now,  I  would  observe  on  his  I'easoning,  in  the  first  place,  that,  allowing 
for  a  moment  his  interpretation  of  the  prophecy  to  bo  correct,  (i.  e.,  that  it 
signifies  the  abolishment  of  the  old,  and  an  introduction  of  a  new  law)  tho 
prophecy,  at  any  rate,  cannot  refer  to  Jesus,  or  the  Gospel ;  for  so  far  from 
having  been  fulfilled  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  or  his  Apostles,  it  has  not  been 
fulfilled  to  this  day ;  for  certainly  God  has  not  yet  made  a  new  covenant  with 
the  Jews,  to  whom  the  prophecy  refers,  nor  has  he  yet  "  put  his  law  in  their 
hearts ;"  nor  "  caused  them  to  walk  in  it ;"  neither  has  he  yet  "  forgiven 
their  sins,  or  forgotten  their  iniquities,"  since  they  are  even  now  suffering 
the  consequences  of  them. 

I  will  now  retract  what  I  granted,  and  assert  that  the  prophet  did  not 
mean  an  abolition  of  the  Mosaic,  and  the  introduction  of  a  new,  law ;  for 
though  the  prophet  speaks  of  a  new  covenant,  he  says  nothing  of  a  new  law  ; 
but  on  the  contrai'y,  asserts  that  this  new  covenant  would  be  effectual  to 
make  them  obey  the  law.  God  promised  to  put  his  law  within  their  hearts 
(not  out  of  remembrance,  as  the  catechisms  say ;)  and  in  this  alone  this 
covenant  differs  from  the  one  entered  into  at  Mount  Sinai.  For,  then, 
though  the  law  was  given  them,  it  was  not  "  put  within  their  hearts,"  but 
they  were  apt,  to  their  own  controul,  to  obey  it,  or  not,  being  assured, 
however,  that  happiness  should  be  the  reward  of  obedience,  and  death  and 
excision  the  punishment  for  revolt  and  disobedience.  And  you  will  moreover 
observe,  that,  notwithstanding  what  is  here  called  a  new  covenant,  nothing 
is  here  said  of  the  abrogation  of  any  former  covenant,  or  constitution, 
or  of  any  new  terms,  that  would  be  required  by  God  on  the  part  of 
the  Israelites.  The  prophet,  by  expanding  his  idea,  sufficiently  ex- 
plains his  whole  meaning,  which  is  evidently  this,  viz. :  That  God  would 
make  a  new,  and  solemn  promise  to  the  Israelites,  that  they  should 
be  no  more  out  of  favor  with  him ;  that  their  hearts  would  be  here- 
after so  right  with  God,  that  in  consequence  of  it,  they  would  continue 
in  the  quiet  possession  of  their  country  to  the  end  of  time ;  and  all  this 


61 

is  intimated  by  Moses,  in  the  quotation  from  Deuteronomy,  quoted  in  the 
last  chapter. 

Thus  is  the  passage  perfectly  consistent  with  those  in  the  Old  Testament, 
which  affirm,  (whether  right  or  wrong  is  not  my  concern)  the  perfection  and 
perpetuity  of  the  Mosaic  Law.  "  Remember,"  are  the  last  words  of  the  last 
of  the  prophets,  Malachi, — "  Remember  the  Law  of  Moses,  my  servant  which 
I  commanded  unto  him  in  Horeb,  with  the  Statutes,  and  Judgments."  Also 
in  the  Psalms  : — "  The  Law  of  the  Lord  is  'perfect,  converting  the  soul.  The 
Testimony  of  the  Lord  is  faithful,  bringing  wisdom  to  the  simple.  The 
Precepts  of  the  Lord  are  riglit,  rejoicing  the  heart,  and  enlightening  the 
eyes."  "The  works  of  his  hands  are  Truth,  and  Judgment.  All  his  Precepts 
are  sure.  They  stand  fast  for  ever  and  ever:  being  done  in  Truth  and 
Uprightness."  *■ 

CHAPTER  XIII, 


EXAMINATION     OF     SOMK     DOCTKINES     IN     THE     NEW     TESTAMENT     DERIVED     FBOM     THB 
CABALLA,   THE    OBIENTAL    PniLOSOPHY,    AND    THE    TENETS    OF    ZOEOASTEB. 

I  HAVE  said  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  Paul  was  well  versed  in 
Cabbalistic  Learning,  and  not  unacquainted  with  the  principles  of  the 
Philosophy  styled  "  the  Oriental ;"  and  to  jirove  and  exemplify  this  assertion, 
is  the  subject  and  intention  of  this  chapter.  None  but  the  learned  know, 
how  much  of  Systematic  Christianity  is  derived  from  the  Cabbalism  of  the 
Jews ;  the  Religion  of  the  Magi  of  Persia ;  and  the  Philosophy  of  the 
Bramins  of  Indostan.  I  shall  attempt  to  lay  open  these  Theological  Arcana, 
and  make  them  known  to  those  who  ought  to  know  what  they  have  been 
kept  in  ignorance  of. 

Many  of  my  readers  have,  no  doubt,  frequently  puzzled  themselves  over 
these  words  of  Paul's,  Eph.  v.  30  : — "  For  we  are  members  of  his  (Christ's) 
body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones.  Because  of  this,  a  man  shall  leave  his 
father,  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife,  and  they  two  shall  be  one 
flesh.  This  mystery  is  great,  but  I  speak  concerning  Chi'ist  and  the  Church." 
This  passage  exemplifies  the  connexion  between  Christ  and  the  Church,  by 
that  which  subsists  between  a  man  and  his  wife ;  and  this  Paul  calls  "  a 
great  mystery ;"  and  it  no  doubt  must  be  a  very  mysterious  passage  to  all 
those  who  are  unacquainted  with  the  cabbalistic  notion  to  which  it  alludes, 
and  refers.  To  illustrate  the  passage,  and  to  prove  that  Paul  mixed  his 
Cabbalism  with  his  religion,  I  shall  set  down  here  the  note  of  Dr.  Whitby, 
the  Christian  Commentator,  upon  the  text  of  Paul. 

"  The  learned  Dr.  AUix  saith.  The  first  match  between  Adam  and  Eve, 
iras  a  type  of  that  between  Christ  and  his  Church ;  and  in  this,  saith  he, 
the  Apostle  foUows  the  Jewish  notions.  The  Jews  say,  the  mystery  of 
Adam,  is  the  mystery  of  the  Messiah,  who  is  the  Bridegroom  of  the  Church. 
These  two  persons,  therefore,  confirm  the  observation  of  Munster,  that  the 
creation  of  the  woman  from  the  rib  of  the  man,  was  made  by  the  Jews  to 
signify  the  marriage  of  the  celestial  man  who  is  blessed,  or  of  the  Messiah, 
with  the  Church ;  whence  the  Apostle  applies  the  very  words  which  Adam 
said  concerning  Eve  his  spouse,  to  the  Church,  who  is  the  spouse  of  Christ ; 
saying,  "  for  we  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones." 
For  the  explanation  of  these  words,  take  what  follows  : — "  The  profoundest  of 
the  Jewish  Divines,  whom  they  now  call  Cabbalists,  having  such  a  notion  as 
this  among  them,  that  sensible  things  are  but  an  imitation  of  things  above, 
conceived  from  thence,  that  there  was  an  original  pattern  of  love  and  union. 


62 

which  is  between  a  man  and  his  wife  in  this  world.  This  being  expressed  by 
the  kindness  of  Tiphiret  and  Malchuth,  which  are  the  names  they  give  to  the 
invisible  Bridegroom  and  Bride  in  the  upper  world.  And  this  Tiphiret,  or 
the  celestial  Adam,  is  so  called  in  opposition  to  the  terrestial  Adam ;  as 
Malchuth  also,  (i.  e.,  the  kingdom)  they  call  by  the  name  of  Chinnereth  Isradt 
the  Congregation  of  Israel,  who  is,  they  say,  united  to  the  celestial  Adam,  as 
Eve  was  to  the  terrestial."  So  that  in  sum,  they  seem  to  say  the  same  that 
Paul  doth,  when  he  tells  us,  that  "  marriage  is  a  great  mystery,  but  ho  speaks 
concerning  Christ  and  his  Church."  For  the  marriage  of  Tiphiret  and 
Malchuth,  is  the  marriage  of  Christ,  "  the  Lord  from  Heaven,"  ("  the  first  man 
was  of  the  Earth  earthly,  the  second  man  is  the  Lord  from  Heaven,"  says  Paul, 
1  Cor.  XV.,)  with  his  spouse  the  Church,  which  is  the  conjunction  of  Adam 
and'Eve,  and  of  all  other  men  and  women  descended  from  them.  Origen 
also  seems  to  have  had  some  notion  of  the  relation  of  this  passage  to  Adam 
and  Eve,  when  he  speaks  thus : — "  If  any  man  deride  us  for  using  the  example 
of  Adam  and  Eve  in  these  words,  'and  Adam  knew  his  wife,'  when  we  treat 
of  the  knowledge  of  God,  let  him  consider  these  words — '  This  is  a  great 
mystery.'  "  TertuUian  frequently  alludes  to  the  same  thing,  saying — "  This 
is  a  great  saci*ament,  carnally  in  Adam,  spiritually  in  Christ,  because  of  the 
spiritual  marriage  between  Christ  and  the  Church." 

Thus  far  Dr.  Whitby,  and  the  intelligent  reader,  who  is  acquainted  with 
the  dogmas  and  philosophy  of  Indpstan,  will  not  fail  to  see  through  this  cloud 
of  words  the  origin  of  this  analogy  of  Paul.  The  fact  is,  that  in  India  and 
in  Egypt,  the  Divine  creative  power  which  produced  all  things  and  energizes 
in  everything,  was  symbolized  by  the  Phallus ;  and  to  this  day,  in  Hindostau, 
the  operation  of  Diety  upon  matter  is  symbolized  by  images  of  the  same ; 
and  in  the  darkest  recesses  of  their  Temples,  which  none  but  the  initiated 
were  permitted  to  enter:  the  Phallus  of  stone  is  the  solitary  idol,  before  which 
the  illuminated  bowed.  This  symbol,  though  shameful  and  abominable,  is 
yet  looked  upon  in  India  with  the  profoundest  veneration,  and  is  not  with  them 
the  occasion  of  shame  or  reproach.  It  is,  however,  a  blasphemous  abomina- 
tion ;  and  the  marriage  between  Christ  and  the  Church  ought  not  to  have 
been  thus  illustrated  by  Paul,  who  reproached  the  heathen  mysteries  as 
*' works  of  darkness,"  which  mysteries,  in  fact,  consisted  principally  in 
exhibiting  these  symbols,  and  similar  abominations. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  other  clause  of  the  verse 
— what  could  Paul  mean  by  the  strong  language,  "  We  ai'e  members  of  his 
body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones  ?"  Why,  my  reader,  he  meant,  that 
Christians  were  really  part  of  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  if  you  desire  to  know 
how  he  imagined  this  union  to  be  effected,  I  request  you  to  turn  to  the  10th 
eh.  of  the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  where  at  the  16th  verse  he  thus 
writes  to  them : — *'  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  partici- 
pation of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  loa.f  (according  to  the  Greek  original) 
which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  participation  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  for.  Because 
the  loaf  is  one,  we,  though  many,  are  one  body,  for  we  all  partake  of  that  one 
loaf."  Again,  ch.  xi.  19,  "For  he  that  eateth,  and  drinketh  unworthily, 
eateth  and  drinketh  judgment  to  himself,  not  distinguishing  (or  discovering) 
the  Lords  body;"  and  in  ch.  xii.  27,  he  says  to  them,  "Ye  are  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  his  members  severally."  (See  the  original  of  these  passages  in 
Griesbach's  Greek  Testament.)  Thus  you  see,  reader,  that  Paul  considered 
Christians  "  as  members  of  his  (Christ's)  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones," 
because  they  partook  of  one  loaf,  which  was  the  body  of  Christ.  The  Papists 
are  in  the  right,  and  have  been  much  slandered  by  the  Protestants  ;  for  the 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  or  at  least  the  Real  Presence,  is  as  plainly 
taught  in  the  New  Testament,  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.     You  have 


63 

Been  -what  Paul  believed  upon  this  subject,  and  I  shall  corroborate  the  sens© 
I  put  upon  his  words,  by  the  words  of  Jesus,  his  master,  and  by  quotations 
from  the  earliest  Fathers. 

Jesus  says,  John  vi. — "  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down  from 
Heaven  ;  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for  ever,  and  the  bread 
which  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world." 
The  Jews,  therefore,  contended  among  themselves,  saying,  "  How  can  this 
man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  ?"  Jesus,  therefore,  said  unto  them,  "  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  unless  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  son  of  man,  and  drink  his 
blood,  ye  have  not  life  in  you.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my 
blood,  hath  everlasting  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. .  For  my 
flesh  is  verili/  flood,  and  my  blood  is  verily  drink.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh, 
and  drinketh  my  blood,  abideth  in  me,  and  /  in  him.  As  the  living  Father 
hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  (here  is  an  oath)  so  he  likewise  that 
eateth  me  shall  live  by  me." 

This  strange  doctrine  was  the  faith  of  the  Primitive  Christians,  as  is 
well  known  to  the  learned  Protestants,  though  they  do  not  like  to  say  so  to 
their  "  weaker  brethren." 

Ignatius  says,  "  There  is  one  flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  one 
cup  in  the  unity  of  his  blood ;"  and  of  certain  heretics  he  says,  "  they 
confess  not  the  Eucharist  to  be  the  flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 

Justin  Martyr,  in  his  Apology,  asserts  that  the  consecrated  bread  "  is, 
some  how  or  other,  the  flesh  of  Christ." 

In  the  dispute  with  Latimer  about  Transubstantiation,  it  is  acknow- 
ledged by  the  most  candid  writers,  that  the  Roman  Catholics  had  much  the 
advantage.-  It  must  have  been  so,  where  quotations  from  the  Fathers  were 
allowed  as  arguments.  For  what  answer  can  be  made  to  the  following 
extracts  ? — "  What  a  miracle  is  this  !  He  who  sits  above  with  the  Father,  at 
the  same  instant,  is  handled  by  the  hands  of  men."  [Chrysostom.]  Again, 
from  the  same,  "  That  which  is  in  the  cup,  is  the  same  which  flowed  from 
the  side  of  Christ."  Again,  "  Because  we  abhor  the  eating  of  raw  flesh ; 
therefore^  it  appeareth  bread,  though  it  be  flesh."  [Theophylact.]  Or  to 
this? — "  Christ  was  carried  in  his  own  hands,  when  he  said  'this  is  my  body.'" 
[Austin.]  Or  to  this  ? — "  We  are  taught,  that  when  this  nourishing  food  is 
consecrated,  it  becomes  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour."  [Justin  Martyr.] 
Or,  lastly,  to  this  ?  [from  Ambrose] — "  It  is  bread  be/ore  consecration,  but 
after  that  ceremony,  it  becomes  the  flesh  of  Christ." 

Another  doctrine  which  Paul  derived  from  the  Oriental  Philosophy,  and 
which  makes  a  great  figure  in  his  writings,  is  the  notion,  that  moral  corrup- 
tion originates  in  the  influence  of  the  body  upon  the  mind. 

It  was  one  of  the  principal  tenets  of  the  Oriental  Philosophy,  that  all 
evil  resulted  from  matter,  and  its  first  founder  appears  to  have  argued  in  the 
following  manner : — "  There  are  many  evils  in  the  world,  and  men  seem 
impelled  by  a  natural  instinct  to  the  practice  of  those  things  which  reason 
condemns.  But  that  eternal  mind,  from  which  all  spirits  derive  their 
existence,  must  be  inaccessible  to  all  kinds  of  evil,  and  also  of  a  most  perfect 
and  benificent  nature ;  therefore,  the  origin  of  these  evils  with  which  the 
world  abounds,  must  be  sought  somewhere  else,  than  in  the  Deity.  It  cannot 
reside  in  him  who  is  all  perfection,  and,  therefore,  it  must  be  without  him. 
Now,  there  is  nothing  without  or  beyond  the  Deity  but  matter;  therefore, 
matter  is  the  centre  and  source  of  all  evil,  of  all  vice." 

One  of  the  consequences  they  di'ew  from  this  hypothesis  was,  that  since 
all  evil  resulted  from  matter,  the  depravity  of  mankind  arose  from  the  pollu- 
tion derived  to  the  human  soid,  from  its  connexion  with  the  material  body 
which  it  inhabits  ;  and,  therefore,  the  only  means  by  which  the  mind  could 


64 

purify  itself  from  the  defilement,  and  liberate  itself  from  the  bondage 
imposed  upon  it  by  the  body,  was  to  emaciate  and  humble  the  body  by 
frequent  fasting,  and  to  invigorate  the  mind  to  overcome  and  subdue  it  by 
retirement  and  contemplation. 

The  New  Testament,  though  it  does  not  recognise  this  principle  of  the 
Oriental  Philosophy,  "  that  evil  originates  from  matter,"  yet  coincides  with 
it  in  strenuously  asserting  that  the  corruption  of  the  human  mind  is  derived 
from  its  connexion  with  the  human  body. 

To  prove  this  proposition,  I  shall  show  that  Paul  calls  all  crimes  "the 
works  of  the  flesh."  "Now,  the  works  of  the  flesh  are  manifest,  (says  he, 
Gal.  V.  19,)  which  are  these :  adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness,  lacivious- 
ness,  idolatry,  sorcery,  hatred,  contentions,  rivalries,  wrath,  disputes, 
divisions,  heresies,  envyings,  mm'ders,  drunkenness,  revellings,  and  such 
like."  He  also  describes  the  conflict  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit,  or 
mind,  in  these  terms: — :"  For  I  know  that  in  me,  that  is,  in  nv/  flesh,  dwelleth 
no  good,  for  to  will  is  present  with  me,  but  to  perform  that  which  is  good,  I 
find  not,  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not,  that  1  do.  For  I  delight  in  the  law 
of  God  according  to  the  inner  man,  but  I  see  another  law  in  my  members 
warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the 
law  of  my  sin  in  my  members.  O  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who  will  deliver 
me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?"  (or  this  body  of  death.)  And  he  goes  on 
to  observe,  "  That  I,  the  same  man,  with  my  mind  sei've  the  law  of  God,  but 
with  m,y  flesh  the  law  of  sin." — Rom.  vii.  "  For  the  flesh  desireth  against 
(or  in  opposition  to)  the  spirit,  and  the  spirit  against  the  flesh,  and  these  are 
contrary  the  one  to  the  other,  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the  things  that  ye  would." 
— "  Those  that  are  Christ's  (says  Paul,  Gal.  v.  24)  have  criicifled  the  flesh, 
with  its  passions  and  desires."  And  they  are  commanded  (Rom.  vi.  12  and 
viii.  13)  "to  mortify,"  or,  according  to  the  original,  "put  to  death,"  or 
"kill  their  members;"  and  Paul  himself  uses  language  upon  this  subject 
exceeding  strong.  He  represents  (1  Cor.  ix.  27)  his  mind  and  body  as 
engaged  in  combat,  and  says,  "I  bufet  my  body,  and  subject  it."  The  word 
here  translated  "  subject,'*  in  the  original,  means  "  to  carry  into  servitude," 
and  is  a  term  taken  from  the  language  of  the  Olympic  games,  where  the 
boxers  dragged  ofi"  the  arena,  their  conquered,  disabled,  and  helpless 
antagonists  like  slaves,  in  which  humbled  condition  the  Apostle  represents 
his  body  to  be  with  respect  to  his  mind. 

From  this  notion  of  the  sinfulness  of  "  the  flesh,"  we  are  enabled  to 
apprehend  Paul's  reasonings  about  the  suff"erings  of  Jesus  "  in  the  flesh." 
"  Since  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  Christ  himself  also  in 
like  manner  partook  of  them  " — Heb.  ii.  14.  "  For  (says  Paul)  what  the 
law  could  not  do  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  hath  done,  who, 
by  having  sent  his  own  son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  on  account  of 
sin,  hath  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh." — Rom.  viii.  3.  "But  now,  through 
Christ  Jesus,  ye  who  formerly  were  far  ofi",  are  brought  near  by  the  blood  of 
Christ.  For  he  is  our  Peace  who  hath  made  both  one,  and  hath  broken 
down  the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  us,  having  abolished  by  his  flesh 
the  cause  of  enmity." — Ephes.  ii.  16.  "You  that  were  formerly  aliens,  and 
enemies  in  your  mind  by  wicked  works,  yet  he  hath  now  reconciled  by  his 
fleshly  body,  through  his  death." — Col.  i.  20. 

Though  these  notions  are  sufficiently  strange,  yet  they  are  not  so  very 
remarkable  as  the  one  I  am  about  to  consider.  It  is  a  singular,  and  a 
demonstrable  fact,  that  the  fundamental  scheme  6f  Christianity  Avas  derived 
from  the  religion  of  the  ancient  Persians.  The  whole  of  the  New  Testament 
Scheme  is  built  upon  the  hypothesis,  that  there  is  a  powerful  and  malignant 
being,  called  the  Devil  and  Satan,  the  chief  of  unknown  myi'iads  of  other 


65 

evil  spirits ;  that  he  is,  by  the  sufferance  of  God,  the  Prince  of  this 
world,  and  is  the  Author  of  sin,  woe  and  death;  the  Tempter,  the  Tor- 
mentor of  men,  and  the  Tyrant  of  the  Earth ;  that  the  Son  of  God,  to 
deliver  mankind  from  the  vassalage  of  this  monster,  descended  from  heaven, 
and  purchased  their  ransom  of  the  Tyrant,  at  the  price  of  his  blood ;  for  * 
observe,  my  reader,  that  the  idea  of  the  death  of  Jesus  being  an  atonement 
to  Ood  for  the  sins  of  men,  is  a  modern  notion  ;  for  the  Primitive  Christians, 
all  of  them,  considered  the  death  of  Jesus  as  a  ransom  paid  to  the  Devil, 
as  may  be  proved  from  Origen  and  other  Fathers.  That  the  New  Testament 
represents  this  character  as  the  sovereign  of  this  world,  ihay  be  proved  by 
the  following  passages  : — "  All  this  power  will  I  give  thee,  and  the  glory  of 
them,  (said  the  Tempter  to  Jesus,  when  he  showed  him  all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  earth,)  for  it  is  delivered  unto  me,  and  to  whomsoever  I  will,  I  give  it." 
Luke  iv.,  Jesus  calls  him  "the  Prince  of  this  world;"  John  xii.,  and 
elsewhere.  In  his  commission  to  Paul,  he  calls  embracing  his  religion, 
"  turning  from  darkness  unto  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  to  Ood." — 
Acts  xxvi.  18.  Accordingly  we  find,  that  to  become  a  Christian  was  con- 
sidered as  being  freed  from  the  tyranny  of  Satan.  "  God  hath  given  life  to 
you,  (says  Paul)  who  were  dead  in  offences,  and  sins ;  in  which  ye  formerly 
walked,  according  to  the  course  (or  constitution)  of  this  woi'ld,  according  to 
the  Prince  of  the  Power  of  the  air." — Ephesians  ii. ,  1.  And  again  : — "  If  our 
gospel  be  covered,  (or  hid)  it  is  covered  among  those  that  are  lost,  among 
those  unbelievers,  whose  minds  the  God  of  this  ivorld  hatb  blinded,  to  the 
end  that  the  glorious  gospel  of  Christ  should  not  enlighten  them." — 2  Cor. 
iv.  4.  John  says  in  his  Epistle,  that  "  the  whole  world  lieth  in  the  power  of 
the  wicked  one ;"  and  Jesus  in  the  gospels  compares  him  to  "  a  strong  man 
armed,  keeping  his  goods  ;"  and  himself  to  one  stronger  than  he,  who  strip- 
peth  him  of  the  arms  in  which  he  trusted,  and  spoileth  his  goods.  "  For 
this  purpose  was  the  Son  of  God  manifested,  that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of 
the  Devil." — 1  John  iii.  8.  And  it  is  said,  "  that  he  came  to  send  forth  the 
capitive  into  liberty,  and  to  heal  those  who  were  oppressed  of  the  Devil." 
Men  are  also  said  to  have  been  "  taken  captive  of  the  Devil,  to  fulfil  his  will." 
— 2  Timothy  ii.  26.  And  we  find  that  the  Christians  attributed  all  their 
Bufferings  to  the  opposition  of  this  Being.  "  Put  on  (says  Paul)  the  whole 
armour  of  God,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  stand  against  the  wiles  of  the  Devil. 
For  we  struggle  not  against  flesh  and  blood  only  ;  but  against  principalities, 
against  powers,  against  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world,  against 
wicked  spirits  in  high  places." — Ephesians  vi.  12.  Christians  are  also  said 
to  be  delivered  by  God  from  the  power  of  darkness,  and  to  be  translated  into 
the  kingdom  of  his  dear  son.  That  is,  as  Chi-istians  were  considered  as 
being  the  subjects  of  JeSVis,  and  the  rest  of  the  world  as  being  of  the  king- 
dom of  Satan,  when  a  man  became  a  Christian  he  was  translated  from  the 
kingdom  of  one,  to  the  kingdom  of  the  other.  Jesus  accused  the  Devil  as 
being  the  author  of  all  evil,  as  a  liar,  and  the  father  of  lies,  and  a  murderer 
of  men,  and  of  women,  too,  as  appears  in  the  Gospel,  from  the  account  of 
that  one,  whose  back  the  Devil  had  bowed  down  for  eighteen  years — Luke 
xiii.  10 — (on  what  account  it  does  not  appear.)  In  short,  the  New  Testa- 
ment represents  to  him  as  being  the  source  of  all  evil  and  mischief,  and  the 
promoter  of  it ;  and  the  whole  woi'ld  as  being  his  subjects,  and  combined  with 
him  against  all  good. 

But  how  does  all  this  prove  that  these  notions  were  derived  from  the 
religion  of  the  ancient  Persians  ?     I  answer  by  requesting  you,  my  reader, 
to  peruse,  attentively,  the  following  account  of  the  fundamental  principles 
of  the  religion  of  Zoroaster,  the  prophet  of  the  Persians, 
I 


66 

The  doctrine  of  Zoroaster  was,  that  there  was  one  Supreme  Being, 
independent,  and  self-existing  from  all  eternity  ;  that  inferior  to  him,  there 
■were  two  Angels,  one  the  Angel  of  Light,  who  is  the  Author  and  Director  of 
all  Good ;  and  the  other,  the  Angel  of  Darkness,  who  is  the  Author  and 
Director  of  all  Evil ;  that  these  two  are  in  a  perpetual  struggle  with  each 
other  ;  and  that  where  the  Angel  of  Light  prevails,  there  the  most  is  good ; 
and  where  the  Angel  of  Darkness  prevails,  there  the  most  is  evil.  That  this 
struggle  shall  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  that  then  there  shall  be  a 
general  resurrection,  and  a  day  of  judgment,  wherein  just  retribution  shall 
be  rendered  to  all  according  to  their  works ;  after  which,  the  Angel  of 
Darkness,  and  his  followers,  shall  go  into  a  world  of  their  own,  where  they 
shall  suffer  in  dai-kness,  the  punishment  of  their  evil  deeds.  And  the  Angel 
of  Light,  and  his  followers,  shall  also  go  into  a  world  of  their  own,  where 
they  shall  receive,  in  everlasting  light,  the  reward  due  to  their  good  deeds. 

It  is  impossible  but  that  the  reader  must  see  the  agreement  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  New  Testament  with  all  this ;  and  since  it  is  undoubted, 
that  these  tenets  of  Zoroaster  are  far  more  ancient  than  the  New  Testament, 
and  since,  as  we  have  seen,  that  that  book  is  much  indebted  to  oriental 
notions  for  many  of  its  dogmas,  there  is  no  way  of  accounting  for  this 
coincidence  (that  I  know  ot),  besides  supposing  the  Devil  of  the  New 
Testament  to  be  of  Persian  origin.  It  is,  however,  in  my  power  to  make 
this  coincidence  still  more  striking  from  the  words  of  Jesus  himself,  who 
says,  (Matthew  xiii.  24),  "  The  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  like  a  man  who  sowed 
good  seed  in  his  field,  but  while  men  slept,  his  enemy  (mark  the  expression^ 
Ms  enemy  came,  and  sowed  tares  among  the  wheat ;  but  when  the  blade 
sprung  up,  and  brought  forth  fruit,  then  appeared  the  tares  also.  So  the 
servants  of  the  householder  came  neai',  and  said  unto  him,  '  Sir,  didst  thou 
not  sow  good  seed  in  thy  field  ?  whence,  then,  hath  it  tares  ?'  And  he  saith 
•unto  them,  an  enemy  hath  done  this."  You  know  the  rest  of  the  parable. 
The  explanation  of  it  is  as  follows : — "  He  who  soweth  the  good  seed  is  the 
Son  of  Man,  and  the  field  is  the  world ;  and  the  good  seed  arc  the  sons  of  the 
kingdom,  and  the  tares  are  the  sons  of  the  Evil  One,  and  the  enemy  who 
sowed  them  is  the  Devil."  Here  you  see,  as  far  as  it  goes,  a  precise  agree- 
ment with  the  doctrine  of  Zoroaster ;  and  to  complete  the  resemblance,  you 
need  but  to  recollect,  that  at  the  day  of  Judgment,  according  to  the  words 
of  Jesus,  the  wicked  go  into  the  fire  prepai'ed  for  the  Devil  and  his  angels; 
and  the  righteous  go  into  life  eternal  with  the  Son  of  God. 

But  is  there  not  a  Satan  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  he  not 
there  represented  as  an  evil  and  malevolent  angel  ?  I  think  not.  This 
notion  probably  arises  from  the  habit  of  interpreting  the  Old  Testament  by 
the  New.  The  Satan  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  represented  as 
God's  minister  of  punishment,  and  as  much  his  faithful  servant  as  any  of  his 
angels.  The  prologue  to  the  book  of  Job  certainly  supposes  that  this  angel 
of  punishment,  by  office,  appeared  in  the  court  of  Heaven,  nay,  he  is  ranked 
among  "  the  Sons  of  God."'  This  Satan  is  merely  the  supposed  chief  of 
those  ministers  of  God's  will,  whose  office  is  to  execute  his  ordered  com- 
mands upon  the  guilty,  and  who  may  be  sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  Job, 
the  minister  of  probation  only,  rather  than  of  punishment ;  and  there  is  no 
reason  why  he  should  be  ashamed  of  his  office  more  than  the  General  of  an 
army,  or  the  Judges  of  the  criminal  courts,  who,  though  they  are  not 
unfrequently  ministers  of  punishment,  are  not,  therefore,  excluded  the 
royal  presence  :  but  on  the  contrary,  their  office  is  considered  as  honourable ; 
— i.  e.,  punishment  without  malevolence,  does  not  pollute  the  inflictor. 
Consider  the  story  of  the  destruction  of  Sodom,  Genesis  xix. ;  of  Egypt, 
Exodus  xxii. ;  of  Sennacherib,  1  Kings  xxix.   35 ;  also  Joshua  v.   13.     The 


67 

term  Satan  signifies  an  adversary,  and  is  applied  to  any  angel  sent  upon  an 
errand  of  punishment  For  example,  Numbers  xxii.  23,  "  The  Angel  of  the 
Lord  stood  in  the  way,  for  an  adversary  (literally,  for  a  Satan)  against 
Balaam,  with  his  sword  drawn  in  his  hand."  "  Curse  ye  Meroz,  saith  the 
Angel  of  the  Lord,"  whose  office  is  to  punish.  So  also  Psalms  xxxv.  5,  "  Let 
the  Angel  (of  punishment)  of  the  Lord  chase  them,  (i.  e.,  drive  them  before 
him  in  a  military  manner;  pursue  them:)  let  their  way  be  dark  and  slippery, 
and  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  following  them." 

2  Samuel  xxiv.  16 : — "  The  Lord  sent  a  pestilence  upon  Israel — the 
angel  (of  punishment)  stretched  forth  his  hand  and  smote  the  people." — 
1  Chronicles  xxi.  16: — "David  saw  the  angel  (of  punishment)  having  a 
drawn  sword  in  his  hand." 

This  notion  is  referred  to,  in  the  Apocryphal  History  of  Susannah,  verse 
59.  "  The  Angel  of  the  Lord  waiteth  with  his  sword  that  he  may  cut  thee 
in  two." 

Thus  we  see,  that  the  term  Satan  is  in  the  Old  Testament  applied  to 
any  Angel  of  the  Lord  ?,ent  upon  an  errand  of  punishment.  And  the  term 
itself  is  so  far  from  being  reproachful  (for  David  is  said,  1  Samuel  xxix.  4,  to 
have  been  "  a  Satan  to  the  Philistines,")  that  I  am  not  sure,  that  if  I  had  by 
me  a  Hebrew  concordance,  but  I  could  point  out  places,  whei'e  God  himself 
is  represented  as  saying,  that  he  would  be  an  adversary  or  a  Satan  to  bad  men 
and  wicked  nations.  And  though  there  is  in  the  Old  Testament  a  particular 
angel  styled,  by  way  of  eminence,  "  The  Satan,"  it  is  so  far  from  being 
evident  that  he  is  an  evil  being,  that  I  would  undertake  to  give  good  reasons 
to  prove  that  this  distinguished  angel  is  the  real  prototype,  from  whence  the 
imposter  Mahomet  took  the  idea  of  his  "  Azrael,"  the  "  Angel  of  Death ;" 
who,  in  the  Koran,  is  certainly  represented  as  being  as  much  the  faithful 
servant  of  God,  as  any  of  the  Angelic  Hosts. 

In  fine,  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament  upon  this  matter  may  be 
thus  expressed : — "  These  be  spirits  created  for  vengeance,  which  in  their 
fury  lay  on  sore  strokes ;  in  the  time  of  destruction  they  pour  out  their  force, 
and  appease  the  wrath  of  him  that  made  them.  They  sh^  rejoice  in  his 
{God's)  commandment,  and  they  shaU  be  ready  upon  earth,  when  need  is ; 
and  when  their  time  is  come,  they  shall  not  transgress  his  word." — 
Ecclesiasticus  xxxix.  28. 

CHAPTER   XIV. 

/ 

A  CONSIDEKATION  OF  THE  "  GIFT  OF  TONGUES,"  AND  OTHER  MIRACULOUS  GIFTS 
ASCRIBED  TO  THE  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANS;  AND  WHETHER  RECORDED  MIRACLES 
ARE  INFALLIBLE  PROOFS  OF  THE  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  OF  DOCTRINES  SAID  TO 
HAVE    BEEN    CONFIRMED    BY    THEM. 

Paul,  in  his  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  speaks  to  them  as  possessing 
•several  spiritual  gifts,  conferred  on  them  by  his  ministration;  such  as  the 
gift  of  prophecy,  discerning  of  spirits,  and  speaking  in  unknown  tongues. 
He  gives  them  directions  about  the  proper  use  of  their  gifts,  and  speaks  to 
them  as  absolutely  possessing  those  gifts,  with  the  utmost  confidence.  Dr. 
Paley,  in  his  Defence  of  Christianity,  lays  great  stress  upon  the  manner  in 
which  Paul  addresses  the  Corinthians  upon  these  miraculous  powers ;  and 
he  considers  it  as  an  absolute  proof  of  the  truth  of  Christianity — because,  he 
says,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  Paul  could  have  had  the  boldness  and 
presumption  to  speak  to  these  men  concerning  the  use  and  abuse  of  these 
gifts,  if  they  really  had  them  not. 


6S 

I  am  ready  to  confess,  that  this  argument  of  Dr.  Paley  puzzled  me"; 
for  though  I  was  satisfied  that  Paul  had  imposed  upon  their  credulity  many 
irrelevant  passages  from  the  Scriptures  as  proofs  of  Christianity,  yet  I  could 
not  imagine  that  he  could  presume  so  much  upon  their  stupidity,  as  to  give 
them  directions  about  the  management  of  their  miraculous  powers,  /vyhich 
being  matters  of  fact  known  to  themselves,  therefore,  if  false,  I  conceived 
must  place  Paul  in  their  minds  in  the  light  of  a  banterer,  when  he  told  them 
of  gifts,  which  their  own  consciousness,  I  thought,  must  make  them  sensible 
they  had  not.  I  say  I  was  puzzled  with  this  argument,  until  I  happened  to 
meet  with  some  extracts  from  Brown's  "  History  of  the  Shakers,"  which 
convinced  me  at  once,  from  the  obvious  likeness  between  these  Shakers  and 
the  primitive  Christians,  that  Paul  might  have  written  to  the  Corinthians 
"  concerning  their  spiritual  gifts,"  with  perfect  impunity. 

This  Brown  had  been  a  Shaker  himself,  and  while  with  them,  he  was  as 
great  a  believer  in  his  own  and  their  gifts,  as  the  Corinthians  could  be  ;  and 
since  it  must  be  obvious,  that  the  gifts  of  these  Shakers  are  mere  self- 
delusions,  there  is,  then,  in  our  own  times  an  example  of  the  gifts  of  the 
primitive  Christians,  which  enables  us  to  comprehend  their  nature  and 
character  perfectly  well. 

"Many  of  them,"  (the  Shakers)  says  Mr.  Brown,  "professed  to  have 
Tisions,  and  to  see  numbers  of  spirits,  as  plain  as  they  saw  their  brethren  and 
sisters,  and  to  look  into  the  irivisible  woi'ld,  and  to  converse  with  many  of  the 
departed  spirits,  who  had  lived  in  the  different  ages  of  the  world,  and  to 
leai'nand  to  see  their  different  states  in  the  world  of  spirits.  Some  they  savr, 
they  said,  were  happy,  and  others  miserable.  Several  declared,  that  they  often 
were  in  dark  nights  surrounded  with  a  light,  sometimes  in  their  rooms,  but 
more  often  when  walking  the  road,  so  strong,  that  they  could  see  to  pick  up 
a  pin,  which  light  would  continue  a  considerable  time,  and  enlighten  them  on 
their  way.  Many  had  gifts  to  speak  languages,  and  many  miracles  were  said 
to  be  wrought,  and  strange  signs  and  great  wonders  shown,  by  the  believers. 

And  these  poor  creatures  believed,  and  at  this  day  do  believe,  all  this. 
They  are  not,  you  will  observe,  artful  impostors,  for  the  Shakers  are, 
certainly,  a  harmless  and  a  moral  people,  and  yet  they  confidently  asserted 
(and  continue  to  assert),  that  they  had  these  miraculous  powers  of  "  discern- 
ing spirits,  speaking  with  tongues,  and  doing  great  signs  and  wonders." 
Nevertheless,  it  must  be  evident,  that  these  powers  were  conferred  upon 
them  only  by  their  enthusiasm  and  heated  imaginations. 

I  have  heard  of  the  Shakers  before,  and  have  been  informed,  that  those 
in  New  England  are  so  convinced  of  their  miraculous  capabilities,  that  they 
have  been  known,  in  order  to  save  their  neighbours  the  trouble  of  applying 
to  the  tinman,  charitably  to  offer  to  join  the  gaping  seams  of  their  worn-out 
tin  coffee-pots,  and  other  vessels,  "  without  the  carnal  aid  of  solder,"  merely 
by  a  touch  of  their  wonder-working  fingers. 

Mr.  Brown,  in  describing  their  mode  of  conduct,  in  their  religious 
assemblies,  unwittingly  gives  a  striking  exposition  of  the  1st  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians.  He  describes  "  the  brethren  and  sisters"  praying,  singing, 
dancing,  and  preaching  in  known  and  unknown  tongues,  and  sticking  out 
their  arms,  and  extatically  following  their  noses  round  the  church. 

He  says,  respecting  such  as  speak  in  unknown  tongues,  "  they  have  a 
strong  faith  in  this  gift,  and  think  a  person  greatly  favoured  who  has  the  gift 
of  tongues  ;  and  at  certain  times,  when  the  mind  is  overloaded  with  a  fiery, 
strong  zeal,  it  must  have  vent  some  way  or  other ;  their  faith,  or  belief,  at  the 
time  being  in  this  gift,  and  a  will  strikes  the  mind  according  to  their  faith, 
and  then  such  break  out  in  a  fiery,  energetic  manner,  and  speak  they  know  not 
what,  as  /  have  done  several  times.     Part  of  what  I  spake  at  one  time  was 


69 

'' Liero  devo  jerankemango,  ad  silecunbano,  durem  subranw,  deviranto  diaceri- 
mango,  jasse  vahpe  cri  evanigalio ;  de  vom  grom  seb  crinom,  os  vare  cremo  dotno." 

"  When  a  person  runs  on  in  this  manner  for  any  length  of  time,  I  now 
thought  it  probable  that  he  would  strike  into  different  languages,  and  give 
some  words  in  each  their  right  pronounciation,  as  I  have  heard  some  men  of 
learning,  who  were  present,  say  a  few  words,  were  Hebrew,  three  or  four 
Greek,  and  a  few  Latin." 

In  another  place  he  gives  an  account  of  his  maiden  speech  in  an 
unknown  tongue ;  and  it  is  easy  to  conjecture  how  he  came  by  his  gift,  by 
attending  to  what  passed  before  he  broke  out.  Here  it  is : — "  We  danced  for 
near  an  hour,  several  turned  round  like  tops,  and,  to  crown  all,  I  had  a  gift 
to  speak  in  some  other  language ;  but  the  greatest  misfortune  was,  that 
neither  I,  nor  any  other,  understood  what  I  said." 

My  reader  will  not  be  surprized  after  this,  at  hearing  them  say,  that  the 
spectators  of  "  these  signs  and  wonders,"  instead  of  being  properly  affected, 
considered  the  performers  as  "  out  of  their  wits." 

Let  us,  now,  compare  this  account  with  what  Paul  says  upon  similar 
subjects,  in  the  14th  chapter  of  the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  He  advises 
them,  in  exercising  their  gifts,  to  a  discreet  use  of  them,  as  follows : — "  He 
who  speaketh  in  an  unknown  tongue,  speaketh  not  to  men,  but  to  God,  for 
no  man  understandeth  him ;  howbeit  in  the  spirit  he  speaketh  mysteries." 
Again : — "  For  if  the  trumpet  give  an  uncertain  sound,  who  shall  prepare 
himself  to  battle  ?  So,  likewise,  unless  ye  utter  by  the  tongue  words  to  bg 
understood,  how  shall  it  be  known  what  is  spoken,  for  ye  will  speak  to  the 
air  ?"  And  as  others  did  not  understand  the  Corinthians  speaking  ia 
unknown  tongues,  so  it  seems,  too,  that  the  Corinthians  themselves  were  in 
the  same  unfortunate  predicament  with  the  Shakers,  in  not  knowing  the 
meaning  of  what  they  themselves  said  on  these  occasions.  This  is  clear  from 
this  argument  of  Paul :' — "  Wherefore,  let  him  that  speaketh  in  an  unknown 
tongue,  ^ray  that  he  may  interpret."  Why,  pray  that  he  may  interpret,  if  he 
understood  himself?  Does  a  man  who  speaks  with  understanding  a  foreign 
language,  need  to  pray  that  he  may  be  enabled  to  interpret  what  he  says  in 
his  mother  tongue  ?  Surely  every  man  who  understands  himself,  can 
naturally  do  this  ?  After  more  to  the  same  purpose,  Paul  wisely  concludes 
his  argument  by  declaring,  "  that  he  would  rather  speak  in  the  church  five 
words  with  understanding,  (i.  e.,  knowing  what  he  said)  that  he  might  instruct 
others  also,  than  ten  thousand  words  in  an  unknown  tongue."  And  he 
fortifies  his  reasoning  by  this  sensible  remark,  "If,  therefore,  the  whole 
church  come  together  into  one  place,  and  all  speak  in  unknown  tongues,  and 
those  that  are  unlearned,  or  unbelievers,  come  in,  will  they  not  say,  that  ye 
are  mad  ?"  as  the  spectators  said  of  the  Shakers. 

He  advises  them,  therefore,  to  conduct  their  assemblies  with  less  uproar 
than  formerly,  and  exhorts  them  as  follows : — "  How  is  it,  then,  brethren, 
when  you  come  together,  hath  each  of  you  a  psalm,  hath  he  a  doctrine,  hath 
he  an  unknown  tongue,  hath  he  a  revelation  ?  Let  all  things  be  done  to 
edifying.  Now,  if  any  man  speak  in  an  unknown  tongue,  let  it  be  by  two, 
or  at  most  by  three,  and  that  in  succession,  and  let  one  interpret ;  but  if  there 
be  no  interpreter,  let  such  keep  silence  in  the  church,  and  let  him  speak  to 
himself  and  to  God.  And  let  two  or  three  prophets  speak,  and  let  the  others 
discern.  But  if  any  thing  be  revealed  to  another  who  sitteth  by,  let  the  first 
keep  silence.  For  ye  may  all  prophecy,  one  by  one,  that  all  may  learn,  and 
all  may  be  exhorted." 

I  presume  it  will  be  needless  to  point  out  more  particularly,  the  perfect 
coiTespondence  between  "  the  spiritual  gifts"  of  the  Corinthians,  and  those 
of  the  Shakers.      And  I  would  ask  the  venerable  Paley,  if  it  were  now 


70  . 

possible,  whether  an  apostolical  epistle  of  Ann  Lcc,  William  Lee,  or 
Whitaker,  (the  spiritual  mother  and  fathers  of  the  Shakers,)  addressed  to 
them,  and  seriously  givin»  directions  about  the  use  of  "  their  gifts  of  working 
miracles,  and  speaking  with  tongues,"  would  be  sufficient  to  prove  that  they 
really  had  those  gifts  ?  And,  moreover,  (to  make  tho  cases  more  analogous) 
suppose  that  the  Shakers  from  this  time  become  the  dominant  sect  through- 
out the  religious  world,  and  kept  the  upper  hand  during  a  series  of  a 
thousand  or  two  thousand  years,  taking  especial  care  to  collect  and  burn  up 
every  writing  of  their  enemies  and  opposers.  How  should  we,  (supposing 
ourselves  all  the  while  invisible  spectators  of  the  thing),  how  should  we  pity 
our  posterity,  who,  at  the  end  of  that  period,  should  be  gravely  told  by  the 
learned  and  mitred  advocates  of  Shakerism,  that  the  miracles  of  the  founders, 
and  first  followers  of  their  religion  were  certainly  true,  for  that  they  wore 
honest  and  good  men,  with  no  motive  to  deceive,  and  had  addressed  letters 
to  their  first  converts,  wherein  they  make  express  mention  of  their  possessing 
these  gifts ;  and  give  in  the-  simplest  and  most  unassuming  manner, 
directions  for  using  them.  Suppose,  then,  that  our  posterity,  having  been 
deprived  by  the  prudential  care  of  the  old  fathers  of  the  then  established 
church,  of  the  means  of  detecting  the  fallacy  which  we  possess;  suppose  that 
they  should  believe  all  this,  and  devoutly  praise  God  every  day  for  confirming 
the  doctrines  of  his  servants  Lee  and  Whitaker,  "  with  signs  following" — 
how  should  we  pity  their  delusion,  and  what  should  we  think  of  the  unlucky 
authors  of  it. 

From  all  this,  I  think  my  reader  must  be  sensible  how  extremely 
fallacious  are  all  proofs  of  doctrines,  pretended  to  be  from  God,  derived  from 
miracles  said  to  have  been  wrought  in  proof  of  their  Divine  authority. 

Miracles  are  related  to  have  been  performed  in  support  of  all  religions 
without  exception  ;  even  the  followers  of  Mahomet,  though  he  did  not  claim 
the  power  of  working  miracles,  have  said  that  he  did.  And  they  will  tell 
you,  that  in  proof  of  his  mission,  he,  in  the  presence  of  hundreds,  divided  the 
moon  with  his  finger,  and  put  half  of  it  in  his  pocket  !* 

*  I  will  here  lay  before  the  reader  the  argiunents  advanced  by  the  Mahometans 
in  behalf  of  the  miracles  of  their  prophet,  extracted  from  the  learned  Reland's 
account  of  Mehometanism.  They  say  that — "  the  miracles  of  Mahomet  and  his 
followers  have  been  recorded  in  innumerable  volumes  of  the  most  famous,  learned, 
pious,  and  subtle  Doctors  of  the  JNJahometan  Faith,  who  let  nothing  pass  without  the 
strictest  and  severest  examination,  and  whose  tradition,  therefore,  is  unexceptionable 
among  them  ;  that  they  were  known  throughout  all  the  regions  of  Arabia,  and 
transmitted  by  common  and  universal  tradition  from  father  to  son,  from  generation 
to  generation.  That  the  books  of  Interpreters  and  Commentators  on  the  Koran,  the 
books  of  Historians,  especially  such  as  give  an  account  of  Mahomet's  life  and  actions, 
the  books  of  annalists  and  lawyers,  the  books  of  mathematicians  and  philosophers, 
and,  last  of  all,  the  books  of  both  Jews  and  Christians  concerning  Mahomet,  are  full 
of  his  miracles.  That  if  the  authority  of  so  many  great  and  wise  doctors  be  denied, 
then,  for  their  part,  they  cannot  see  but  that  a  universal  scepticism  as  to  all  other 
accounts  of  miracles  must  obtain  among  people  of  all  persuasions.  For  authority 
being  the  only  proof  of  facts  done  out  of  our  time,  or, out  of  our  sight,  if  that  be 
denied,  there  is  no  way  to  come  to  the  certainty  of  any  such,  without  immediate 
inspiration ;  and  all  accounts  of  matters  recorded  in  history,  must  be  doubtful  and 
precarious." 

"  And  these  witnesses  would  not  have  dared  to  assert  these  miracles  unless  they 
were  true ;  for  such  as  forged  any  miracles  for  his,  which  he  really  did  not,  lay  under 
a  hearty  curse  from  the  prophet.  For  it  was  a  received  tradition  among  the  faithful, 
that  Mahomet  denounced  hell  and  damnation  to  all  those  who  should  tell  any  lies  of 
him.  So  that  none  who  believed  in  Mahomet,  durst  attribute  miracles  to  him  which 
he  was  not  concerned  in ;  and  those  who  believed  not  in  him,  would  certainly  never 


71 

Speaking  of  the  gift  of  healing  diseases,  which  the  Primitive  Christians 
claimed,  Dr.  Middleton,  in  his  Free  Inquiry,  observes— "But  be  that  as  it 
will,  the  pretence  of  curing  diseases,  by  a  miraculous  power,  was  so  suc- 
cessfully maintained  in  the  heathen  world  by  fraud,  and  craft,  that  when  it 
came  to  be  challenged  by  the  Christians,  it  was  not  capable  of  exciting  any 
attention  to  it  among  those  who  themselves  pretended  to  the  same  power ; 
which,  although  the  certain  effect  of  imposture,  was  yet  managed  with  so 
much  art,  that  the  Christians  could  neither  deny  nor  detect  it ;  but  insisted 
always  that  it  was  performed  by  demons,  or  evil  spirits,  deluding  mankind 
to  their  ruin ;  and  from  the  supposed  reality  of  the  fact,  they  inferred  the 
reasonableness  of  believing  what  was  more  credibly  affirmed  by  the  Chris- 
tiana, to  be  performed  by  the  power  of  the  true  God.  "  We  do  not  deny"' 
says  Athenagoras,  "  that,  in  different  places,  cities,  and  countries,  there  are 
Eome  extraordinary  works  performed  in  the  name  of  idols,  from  which 
some  have  received  benefit,  others  harm."  And  then  he  goes  on  to  prove 
that  they  were  not  performed  by  God,  but  by  demons.  Doctor  Middleton 
then  proceeds,  (p.  77.)  "  whatever  proof,  then,  the  primitive  Church  had 
among  themselves,    yet  it  could  nave  but  little   effect  towards   making 

{)roselytes  among  those  who  pretended  to  the  same  gift;  possessed  more 
argely,  and  exerted  more  openly,  than  in  the  private  assemblies  of  the 
Christians.  For  in  the  Temple  of  Esculapius,  all  kinds  of  diseases  were 
believed  to  be  publicly  cured  by  the  pretended  help  of  that  deity  :  in  proof 
of  which,  there  were  erected  in  each  temple  columns,  or  tables  of  brass,  and 
marble,  on  which  a  distinct  narrative  of  each  particular  cure  was  inscribed." 
He  also  observes  that — "  Pausanias  writes,  '  that  in  the  temple  at  Epidaurus 
there  were  many  columns  anciently  of  this" kind,  and  six  of  them  remaining 
in  his  time,  inscribed  with  the  names  of  men  and  women  cured  by  the  god, 
with  an  account  of  their  several  cases,  and  the  method  of  their  cure  ;  and 
that  there  was  an  old  pillar  besides,  which  stood  apart,  dedicated  to  the 
memory  of  Hippolytus,  who  had  been  raised  from  the  dead!'  Strabo,  also, 
another  grave  writer,  informs  us,  that  these  temples  were  constantly  filled 

have  given  him  the  honour  of  working  any,  unless  he  had  done  so."  Christian  reader, 
thou  seest  how  much  can  be  said,  and  how  many  respectable  witnesses  and  authorities 
can  be  adduced  to  prove  that  Mahomet  wrought  miracles.  Canst  thou  adduce 
more,  or  better,  authorities  in  behalf  of  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  ?  Art 
thou  not  rather  satistied  how  fallacious  the  evidence  of  testimony  is  in  all  such  cases  ? 
This  is  not  all  that  the  Mahometan  might  urge  in  behalf  of  his  prophet ;  fOr  he 
might  tell  the  Christian,  boasting  that  Jesus  and  his  Apostles  converted  the  Roman 
world  from  idolatry,  that  they  overthrew  one  system  of  idolatry,  only  to  build  up 
another,  since  the  worship  of  Jesus,  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  the  Saints,  and  their 
images,  was  established  in  a  few  hundred  years  after  Jesus,  and  continues  to  this  day ; 
an  idolatry  as  rank,  and  much  more  inexcusable  than  the  worship  of  the  ancient 
Greeks  and  Romans.  Whereas,  Mahomet  cut  up  root  and  branch,  both  Christian 
and  Pagan  idolatry,  and  proclaimed  one  only  God  as  the  object  of  adoration ;  and  if 
the  Christian  should  urge  the  rapid  propagation  of  Christianity,  the  Mahometan  might 
reply,  that  Mahomet  was  a  poor  camel-driver,  but  that  Islamism  made  more  progress 
in  one  hundred  years,  than  Christianity  did  in  a  thousand;  that  it  was  embraced  by 
the  noble,  the  great,  the  wise,  and  the  learned,  almost  as  soon  as  it  appeared; 
whereas,  Christianity  was  skulking  and  creeping  among  the  mob  of  the  Roman 
Empire  for  some  hundred  years  before  it  dared  to  raise  its  head  in  pubhc  view.  If 
the  Christian  should  reply  to  this,  by  ascribing  the  success  of  Mahometanism  to  the 
sword,  the  Mahometan  might  reply,  with  truth,  that  it  was  a  vulgar  error ;  for  that 
vastly  more  nations  embraced  Islamism  voluntarily,  than  there  were  who  freehj 
received  Christianity ;  and  he  might  remind  him,  how  much  Christianity  owed  to  the 
accession  of  Constantine ;  to  Charlemagne ;  and  the  Teutonic  Knights ;  and  bid  him 
recollect  that  the  monks  were  assisted  by  soldiers  to  convert  to  Christianity  almost 
every  nation  in  Modern  Europe. — E. 


72 

with  the  sick,  imploring  the  help  of  the  god :  and  that  they  had  tables 
hanging  around  them,  in  >vhich  all  the  miraculous  cures  were  described." 
Dr.  Middlcton  then  proceeds  thus — "  There  is  a  remarkable  fragment  of 
one  of  these  tables  still  extant,  and  exhibited  by  Gruter,  in  his  collection,  as 
it  was  found  in  the  ruins  of  Esculapius'  Temple,  iii  the  island  of  the  Tyber, 
at  Rome,  which  gives  an  account  of  two  blind  men  restored  to  sight,  by 
Esculapius,  in  the  open  view,  and  with  loud  acclamations  0/  the  people,  acknow- 
ledging the  manifest  power  of  the  god  !  !"  Upon  which  he  remarks,  that  "  the 
learned  Montfaucon  makes  this  reflection,  '  that  in  this,  are  seen  either  the 
wiles  of  the  Devil,  or  the  tricks  of  Pagan  priests,  suborning  men  to  counter- 
feit diseases,  and  miraculous  cures.'"  He  then  proceeds,  (p.  79) — "Now, 
though  nothing  can  support  the  belief,  or  credit  of  miracles  more  authenti- 
cally than  public  monuments  erected  in  proof,  and  memory  of  them  at  the 
time  they  were  performed,  yet,  in  defiance  of  that  authority,  it  is  certain  all 
these  Heathen  miracles  were  pure  forgeries,  contrived  to  delude  the 
multitude ;  and,  in  truth,  this  particular  claim  of  curing  diseases  miracu- 
lously, affords  great  room  for  such  a  delusion,  and  a  wide  field  for  the 
exercise  of  craft." 

I  need  not  observe,  that  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  mii;acles  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament,  are  casting  out  devils,  and  healing  diseases,  powers 
claimed  by  the  heathens  as  well  as  these  Christians  :  and  these  miracles, 
(undoubtedly  false)  are  as  ivell,  if  not  far  better  authenticated  than  those  of 
the  New  Testament  :  for  books  may  be  forged,  but  public  monuments  of 
brass  and  marble  are  not  so  capable  of  being  so  :  and  these  are  always  con- 
sidered as  better  evidence  for  facts  than  books.  What  then  will  the  Christian 
say  to  this  ?  for  since  these  miracles,  recorded  on  brass  and  marble,  inscribed 
with  the  narratives  of  them  almost  immediately  after  the  occurrence  of  them, 
ai*e  unquestionably  Lies  ;  what  can  he  pretend  to  say  of  those  recorded  in 
books  certainly  written  many  years  after  the  events  they  record,  and,  as  will 
be  proved  hereafter,  more  than  suspected  to  be  apocryphal?  And  what  would 
become  of  truth  ?  and  who  would  be  able  to  distinguish  truth  from  false- 
hood, in  matters  of  religion,  if  attested  miracles,  such  as  these,  are  sufficient 
to  establish  the  divine  authority  of  doctrines  said  to  be  confirmed  by  them  ? 
Miracles  are  as  numerous,  and  better  authenticated  on  the  part  of  Jupiter, 
Apollo,  and  Esculapius,  than  on  the  part  of  Christianity.  They  are  strong 
on  the  part  of  Popery  against  Protestantism :  for  the  Roman  Catholic 
Churches  in  Europe  are  full  of  monumental  records  of  miracles  wrought  by 
the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  Saints,  in  favour  of  their  worshippers.  Nay,  there 
never  were  miracles  better  proved,  as  far  as  human  testimony  could  prove 
them,  than  the  famous  miracle  mentioned  by  Gibbon  in  his  History  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  where  he  relates  the  story  of  the  Arian  Vandals  cutting  out 
the  tongues  of  a  great  number  of  orthodox  Athanasians,  who,  strange  to  tell, 
preached  as  much  to  the  purpose,  in  favour  of  the  Trinity,  without  their 
tongues,  as  they  did  with  them !  Never  was  there  a  miracle  better  authenti- 
cated by  testimony  than  this.  It  is  mentioned  by  all  the  Christian  writers  of 
that  age.  It  is  mentioned  by  two  contemporary  Roman  historians,  one  of 
■whom  lived  in  Constantinople,  and  who  says  he  looked  into  the  mouths  of 
some  of  these  confessors,  who  had  in  fact  their  tongues  cut  out  entirely  by 
the  roots  ;  and  it  is  recorded  in  the  archives  of  the  Eastei-n  Empire. 

Is  not  this  testimony  enough  ;  and  yet,  is  it  sufficient  to  prove  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity?  Is  it  adequate  to  prove,  that  "the  ancient  of  days" 
became  a  little  child  ;  was  born  of  a  woman,  suckled,  *****»*^  &c.,  &c.  ;  and 
that  "  He  who  liveth  for  ever  and  ever,"  was  whipped,  was  hanged,  and  died 
upon  the  cross,  and  was  buried  ?  Can  this  miracle,  well  attested  as  it  is, 
prove  for  truths,  such  strange,  such  shocking  things  as  these  ? 


73 

The  miracles  of  the  Abbe  Paris,  too,  are  proved  to  be  true,  as  far  as 
testimony  can  prove  any  thing  of  the  kind.  For  they  happened  within  a 
hundred  years,  were  seen  by  many,  and  were  sworn  to  before  the  magistrates, 
by  some  of  the  most  respectable  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  Paris.  How  can 
men,  who  pretend  to  believe  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  upon  such 
meagre  evidence'as  they  have  in  their  favour,  consistently  reject  the  miracles 
of  the  Abbe  Paris  ?  attested  by  evidence  recent,  respectable,  and  so  strong, 
that  to  this  day,  the  juggle,  and  the  means  by  which  so  many  respectable 
people  were  imposed  upon,  have  never  yet  been  thoroughly  developed,  and 
explained. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

APPLICATION  OF  THE  TWO  TESTS,  SAID,  IN  DECTEBONOMY,  TO  HAVE  BEEN  GIVEN  BT 
GOD,  AS  DISCRIMINATING  A  TRUE  PROPHET  FROM  A  FALSE  ONE,  TO  THE 
CHARACTER     ANt>     ACTIONS     OF     JESUS. 

In  the  18th  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  God  says, — "  The  Prophet  which 
shall  presume  to  speak  a  word  in  my  name,  which  I  have  not  commanded 
him  to  speak,  or  that  shall  speak  in  the  name  of  other  gods,  even  that 
Prophet  shall  die.  And  if  thou  say  in  thine  heart,  how  shall  we  know  (or 
distinguish,)  the  word  which  the  Lord  hath  not  spoken?"  Here  is  the 
criterion.  "  When  a  Prophet  speaketh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  if  the  thing 
follow  not,  nor  come  to  pass;  that  is  the  thing  which  the  Lord  hath  not 
spoken.  That  Prophet  hath  spoken  presumptuously :  thou  shalt  not  be 
afraid  of  him." 

Again,  Deuteronomy  13,  "If  there  arise  among  you  a  Prophet,  or  a 
dreamer  of  dreams,  and  give  you  a  sign  or  a  wonder  (i.  e.  a  miracle,)  and 
the  sign  or  wonder  come  to  pass,  whereof  he  spake  unto  thee  saying,  let  us  go- 
after  other  gods,  which  thou  hast  not  known,  and  let  us  serve  them :  thou 
shalt  not  hearken  unto  the  words  of  that  Prophet,  or  that  dreamer  of  dreams ; 
for  the  Lord  your  God  proveth  (or  tryeth)  you,  to  know  whether  ye  love 
the  Lord  your  God  with  all  you  heart,  and  with  all  your  soul." 

And  now  Christian  reader,  I  ask  you  what  you  think  of  mkacles,  or 
"  signs  and  wonders,"  as  proof  of  a  divine  mission,  to  teach  doctrines  novel 
and  innovating,  after  such  clear  and  unequivocal  language  as  this,  from  such 
high  authority  ?  I  am  sure,  that  if  you  are  a  sincere  lover  of  truth,  you 
must  certainly  abandon  that  ground  as  untenable.  For,  from  these  direc- 
tions, the  Jews  were  commanded  these  things.*  1.  That  the  Prophet  who 
presumes  to  speak  a  word,  as  from  God,  which  God  hath  not  commanded 
him  to  speak,  must  be  put  to  death.  2.  That  the  test,  or  criterion  by  which 
they  are  to  discern  a  false  prophet  from  a  true  one,  is  this  :  not  his  miracles, 
but  the  fidfillment  of  his  words.  K  what  he  says  comes  to  pass,  he  is  a  true 
prophet ;  if  the  event  foretold  does  not  take  place,  he  has  spoken  presump- 
tuously, and  must  die  the  death.  3.  '.'  If  any  man  arise  in  Israel,"  and 
advise,  or  teach  them  to  worship  any  other  besides  the  Eternal ;  and  in  proof 
of  the  divinity  of  his  mission  promise  a  sign,  or  a  wonder,  and  in  fact  does 
bring  to  pass  the  sign  or  wonder  promised,  he  is  nevertheless,  not  to  be 
hearkened  to  ;  but  to  be  put  to  death.  And  these  criteria  given  by  God,  or 
Moses,  as  the  means  whereby  they  might  know  a  true  Prophet  from  a  false 
one,  most  exquisitively  prove  his  wisdom  and  foresight.     For  if  he  had  not 

*  Compare    the   above    with    Maimonides,  Hilchot   Yessode   Hattorah,   from 
chapter  7. — D, 
i 


74 

expressly  excluded  miracles,  or  "  signs  and  wonders,"  from  being  proof  of 
the  divinity  of  doctrines,  the  barriers  which  divided  his  religion  from  those 
of  idolaters,  must  have  been  broken  4own;  since,  as  we  have  seen,  well 
attested  miracles  (meaning  always  by  miracles,  "  signs  and  wonders,"  brought 
to  pass  by  human  agency,)  are  related  to  have  been  performed  in  proof  of 
the  divinity  of  every  religion  under  Heaven.  But  veritable  prophecy  is,  and 
can  be  a  proof  proper  only  to  a  true  Revelation,  because  none  can  know 
■what  is  to  come  but  God,  and  those  sent  by  him.  Accordingly,  we  find  that 
the  Jewish  Prophets  were  not  acknowledged  as  such,  but  on  account  of  tJt^ir 
foretelling  the  truth,  or  being  supposed  to  do  so. 

Thus,  it  is  said,  1  Samuel  iii.  20,  "  And  all  Israel,  from  Dan  even  to 
Beersheba,  knew,  that  Samuel  Avas  established  to  be  a  Prophet  of  the  Lord." 
Why  ?  Because  he  performed  miracles  ?  No  !  he  performed  none.  But  he 
was  known  as  a  Prophet  because  "  the  Lord  was  with  him,  and  let  none  of 
his  words  fall  to  the  ground,"  i.  e.  fail  of  their  accomplishment.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  all  the  Hebrew  Prophets,  from  Nathan  to  Malachi.  For 
though  Elijah  and  Elisha  performed  miracles,  yet  it  was  iiot  in  proof  of  their 
mission,  for  that  was  established  before  ;  but  these  miracles  were  occasional 
acts  of  beneficence,  or  protection,  but  were  never  considered,  or  oftered  by 
them  as  proofs  of  their  being  sent  from  God. 

These  things  being  by  this  time,  it  is  hoped,  made  plain  and  evident, 
let  us  now  test  the  character  of  Jesus  as  a  true  Prophet,  by  the  ci'iteria,  by 
Christians,  and  by  the  Jews,  believed  to  be  given  by  God.  If  his  prophecies 
were  fulfilled,  and  if  ho  taught  the  worship  of  no  other  being  besides 
the  Eternal,  he  was,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  a  true  Prophet.  But  if 
any  of  his  prophecies  were  not  fulfilled,  or.  if  he  taught  the  worship  of  any 
other  Being  besides  the  Etei'nal,  he  was  not  a  true  Prophet. 

And  here  it  must  be  recollected,  that  those  prophecies  of  Jesus  only, 
can  be  brought  forward  in  this  question,  which  were  committed  to  writing, 
before  the  event  foretold  came  to  pass  ;  and  therefore  all  Jesus'  prophecies 
concerning  the  manner  and  circumstances  of  his  death,  &c.,  must  be  set 
aside,  as  all  those  events  are  allowed  to  have  taken  place  before  any  of  the 
Gospels  were  written  ;  and  of  course  it  is  not  certain  that  Jesus  did  actually 
foretell  them.  This  is  acknowledged  by  Christians ;  and  accordingly  they 
confine  themselves  to  bringing  forward  as  conclusive  evidence  in  their 
favour,  his  Prophecy  of  the  Destruction  of  _  Jerusalem,  and  the  events 
following.  Here  it  is.  Luke  xxi.  21.  "  When  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  com- 
passed with  armies,  then  know,  that  the  desolation  thereof  is  nigh.  Then 
let  them  which  are  in  Judea  flee  to  the  mountains,  and  let  them  which  are 
in  the  midst  of  it,  depart  out,  and  let  noi?  them  which  are  in  the  country, 
enter  thereinto.  For  these  be  the  days  of  vengeance,  that  all  things  which 
are  written  may  be  fulfilled.  But  woe  unto  them  that  are  with  child,  and  to 
them  which  give  suck  in  those  days.  For  there  shall  be  great  distress  in 
the  land,  and  wrath  upon  this  people.  And  they  shall  fall  by  the  edge  of 
the  sword,  and  shall  be  led  away  captive  into  all  nations,  and  Jerusalem  shall 
be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled. 
And  there  shall  be  signs  in  the  sun,  and  in  the  moon,  and  in  the  stars,  and 
upon  the  earth  distress  of  nations  with  perplexity,  the  sea  and  waves  roaring, 
man's  hearts  failing  them  for  fear,  and  for  looking  after  those  things  which 
are  coming  on  the  earth :  for  the  powers  of  the  heavens  shall  be  shaken. 
And  then  shall  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  a  cloud,  with  power,  and 
great  glory.  And  when  these  things  begin  to  come  to  pass,  then  look  wp, 
and  lift  tip  your  heads  ;  for  your  redemption  draweth  nigh.  And  he  spake  to 
them  a  parable.  Behold  the  fig  tree  and  all  the  trees.  When  they  now  shoot 
forth,  ye  see,  and  know  of  your  own  selves,  that  summer  is  now  nigh  at 


75 

hand.  So  likewise  ye,  when  ye  see  these  things  come  to  pass,  know  ye  that 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  nigh  at  hand.  Verily  I  say  unto  yon,  this  generation 
shall  not  pass  away  till  all  he  falfilled.  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away, 
but  my  words  shall  not  pass  away." 

Such  is  the  prophecy,  and  on  it  I  would  remark,  first,  that  what  Jesus 
here  foretells  concerning  Jerusalem  did  in  fact  come  to  pass.  But  that  was 
not  a  fulfillment  of  Ms  prophecy,  but  of  Daniel's,  who  did,  as  is  set  down  in 
the  7th  chapter  of  this  work,  expressly  foretell  the  utter  destruction  of  the 
city  and  the  temple.  And  it  was  from  Daniel  that  Jesus  obtained  his  know- 
ledge of"the  approach  of  that  event.  For  he  expressly  cites  Daniel,  Matthew 
xxiv.  15  ;  Mark  xiii.  14  ;  and  you  will  please  to  observe  reader,  that  he  refers 
to  him  in  this  quotation  from  Luke,  in  the  words,  "  these  be  the  days  of 
vengeance  that  all  things  which  are  written  may  be  fulfilled.  So  that  in 
foretelling  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  he  did  no  more  than  any  Jew  of 
that  age,  who  attentively  read  their  Scriptures,  could  have  done,  and  beea 
no  prophet  either. 

2.  It  would  have  been  better  for  his  reputation  as  a  Prophet,  if  he  had 
stopped  short  where  Daniel  stopped.  For  what  he  goes  on  to  foretell  has 
not  been  fulfilled.  For  he  proceeds  to  say,  that  "  there  shall  be  signs  in  the 
sun,  and  the  moon,  and  the  stars,"  &c.  All  this  is  taken  from  the  2nd 
chapter  of  Joel,  who  says  that  such  things  shall  take  place  ;  not,  however,  at 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  in  "  the  latter  days,"  at  the  time  of  the 
restoration  of  Israel.  So  that  here  Jesus  has  been  rather  unlucky.  For,  in 
truth,  there  were  no  signs  in  the  sun,  and  the  moon,  and  the  stars,  at  thai 
time ;  neither  was  there  upon  earth  any  "  great  distress  of  nations,"  except; 
in  Judea.  Nor  were  "  the  powers  of  heaven"  shaken.  Certainly,  they  did 
not  see  Jesus  "  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power,  and  great 
glory ;"  and  most  assuredly,  that  generation  did  pass  away,  and  many  others 
since,  and  "  all  these  things"  have  not  been  fulfilled. 

I  know  very  well,  and  have  very  often  smiled  over  the  contrivances  by 
•which  learned  Christians  have  endeavoured  to  save  the  credit  of  this 
prophecy.  They  say  that — it  is  a  figurative  prophecy  relating  entirely  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  did  in  fact  take  place  in  that  generation  ; 
that  the  expressions  about  the  "  distress  of  nations,"  and  "  the  sea  and 
waves  roaring,"  the  "  signs  in  heaven,"  &c.,  are  merely  poetical;  and  that 
the  shaking  of  the  powers  of  heaven  was  merely  the  shaking  and  pulling 
down  the  stones  of  the  temple,  figuratively  called  heaven;  and  that  the 
glorious  coming  of  Jesus  "  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power,  and 
great  glory,"  meant  merely,  that  he  sent  Titus,  and  the  Romans  to  destroy, 
Jerusalem,  or  perhaps  might  have  been  an  invisible  spectator  himself. 

The  reader  will  easily  see,  that  all  this  is  nonsense.  And  the  Commen- 
tator Grotius,  after  meddling  a  great  while  in  this  troublesome  business,  at 
length  ventures  to  insinuate,  that  God  might  have  suffered  Jesus  to  be  in  a 
mistake  about  the  time  of  his  second  coming,  and  to  tell  the  Apostles  what  he 
did,  for  the  sake  of  keeping  up  their  spirits ! 

But  to  annihilate  the  figurative  hyijothesis  of  these  well-meaning  Com- 
mentators at  once,  it  will  be  only  necessary  to  bring  forward  the  testimony 
following.  1.  The  other  Evangelists  make  an  express  distinction  between 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  coming  of  Jesus  ;  and  not  only  so,  but 
represent  him  as  saying,  that  after  that  event,  (i.  e.,  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  "  in  those  days,"  i.  e.,  in  the  same  era  in  which  that  event  took 
place,)  "  the  son  of  man  shall  come,"  &c.  Witness  for  me,  Mark,  chapter 
xiii.  24: — "But  in  those  days,  after  that  tribulation,  (i.  e.,  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem)  shall  the  sun  be  darkened,  and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her  light, 
and  the  stars  of  heaven  shall  fall,  and  the  powers  that  are  in  heaven  shall  bo 


76 

shaken.  And  then  shall  thoy  sec  the  son  of  man  coming  in  the  clouds,  with 
power  and  glory ;  and  then  shall  he  send  his  angels,  aud  shall  gather  his 
elect  from  the  four  winds,  from  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth,  to  the 
uttermost  part  of  heaven  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that  this  generation  shall 
not  pass,  till  all  these  things  be  accomplished."  This  is  decisive,  and  cannot 
be  evaded. 

2.  The  Apostles  and  Primitive  Christians  believed  that  Jesus  would 
come  in  that  (joieration,  as  is  evident  from  many  passages  of  the  New 
Testament.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  ThessaloUians  prove  this,  and  contain  an 
argument  to  them,  intended  to  allay  their  terrors,  or  their  impatience. 
John  says  in  his  first  Epistle,  chapter  ii.  18,  "Little  children,  it  is  the  last 
hour;  and  as  ye  have  heard  that  Antichrist  should  come,  even  now  (or 
already)  there  are  many  Antichrists,  whereby  knoiv  that  it  is  the  last  hour." 
Many  passages  of  similar  import  might  be  brought  forward.  The  meaning 
of  it  is  this — It  appears  from  Paul's  2nd  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  that 
just  before  the  second  coming  of  Jesus,  there  was  a  personage  to  appear  who 
was  to  be  called  Antichrist,  i.  e.,  an  enemy  to  the  Messiah.  (This  notion 
they  got  from  the  interpretation  given  by  the  angel  of  the  vision  of  the 
"little  horn"  in  Daniel.)  John,  therefore,  seeing  many  Antichrists,  i.  e., 
opposers  of  the  pretensions  of  Jesus,  considered  the  sign,  and  thus  knew 
that  it  was  '•'  the  last  hour"  and  that  his  master  was  soon  to  appear. 

It  appears  from  the  2nd  Epistle  of  Peter,  chapter  iii.,  that  there  were 
many  in  his  days  who  scoffed  at  his  master,  saying,  contemptuously,  "  where 
is  the  promise  of  his  coming  ?"  And  Peter  replies  by  telling  them  that  their 
contempt  is  misplaced,  for  that  "  one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand 
years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day."  John,  in  the  1st  chapter  of 
Revelations,  says,  concerning  the  coming  of  Jesus,  "  Behold  he  cometh  with 
clouds,  and  every  eye  shall  see  him,  and  they  also  ivhich  pierced  him,  and  all 
kindreds  of  the  earth  shall  wail  because  of  him."  And  in  the  last  chapter 
of  Revelations  he  represents  Jesus,  as  saying,  "  Surely  I  come  quickly" ! 

In  short,  the  Apostles,  when  they  wanted  to  encourage  their  desponding 
proselytes,  they  usually  did  it  with  such  words  as  these, — "  Be  anxious  for 
nothing,  the  Lord  is  at  hand." — "Behold!  the  Judge  standeth  before  the  door." 
— "Be  patient,  therefore,  brethren,  (says  James)  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord 
draweth  nigh."  And  this  persuasion  did  not  end,  as  might  be  expected,  with 
that  century;  for  we  find  that  the  heathens  frequently  laughed  at  the  expec- 
tations of  the  Primitive  Christians,  who,  till  the  fourth  century,  never  gave 
up  the  expectation  of  the  impending  advent  of  their  master.  Nay,  so  rooted 
was  the  idea  in  their  minds,  that,  understanding  the  woi'ds  of  Jesus  concern- 
ing John,  "  if  I  will  that  he  tariy  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee,"  to  mean 
that  that  disciple  should  not  die,  but  survive  till  the  glorious  appearance  of 
his  lord,  so  far  were  they  from  being  convinced  of  the  vanity  of  their  expec- 
tations by  that  Apostle's  actual  decease,  that  they  insisted,  that,  though  he  vjoi 
buried,  he  was  not  d^ad,  but  only  slept,  and  that  the  earth  over  his  body  rose 
Bind  fell  with  the  action  of  his  breathing  !  ! 

It  is  now  hardly  necessary  to  add,  that  Jesus  did  not  at  all  answer  the 
character  of  a  true  prophet,  when  tested  by  the  criterion  laid  down  in  Deu- 
teronomy for  ascertaining  the  truth  of  the  claims  of  a  prophet  to  a  divine 
mission. 

Let  us  now  see,  whether  he  taught  the  worship  of  other  beings  beside 
the  Eternal,  for  if  he  did,  the  other  test  laid  down  in  Deuteronomy  will  also 
decide  against  him.  Now,  did  he  not  command  the  worship  of  himself  in 
these  words,  "  All  men  should  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father?" 
This,  certainly,  commands  to  render  to  Jesus  the  same  homage  which  is 
rendered  to  God.     I  might  prove  that  his  disciples  did  worship  him,  by 


77 

referring  to  many  passages  in  the  New  Testament, .  especially  in  the 
Revelations,  in  the  latter  part  of  which,  Jesus  is  represented  as  saying, 
"  I  am  the  Alpha,  and  the  Omega,  the  beginning,  and  the  end,  the  first,  and 
the  last,"  terms  applied  to  the  Eternal  in  Isaiah,  where  God  says,  (as  if  in 
express  opposition  to  such  doctrine)  that  "there  is  no  God  with  him:  He 
knows  not  any ;  there  was  none  before  him,  neither  shall  there  be  any  after 
him."  I  could  also  adduce  many  passages  relating  to  the  Eternal  of  Hosts, 
quoted  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  applied  in  the  New  to  Jesus.  Witness 
the  following : — John  xii.  41,  alludes  to  Isaiah  vi.  5 ;  Revelations  i.  8,  11, 
17,  and  ii.  8,  to  Isaiah  xli.  4,  xliii.  11,  and  xliv.  6 ;  John  xxi.  16,  17,  and 
Revelations  ii.  23,  to  1st  Kings  viii.  39  ;  John  vii.  9,  Jeremiah  xi.  20,  and  xvii. 
20,  Revelations  xx.  12,  to  Isaiah  xl.  10 ;  and,  to  crown  all,  Jesus,  in 
Revelations  i.  13,  14,  15,  16,  17,  is  described  in  almost  the  same  words  as  is 
the  Supreme  God;  "the  Ancient  of  Days"  in  Daniel,  7th  chapter;  and  were 
there  not  other  proofs  in  abundance  to  this  purpose,  this  resemblance  alone 
would  decide  me. 

I  now  leave  it  to  the  cool  judgment  of  the  reader,  whether  Jesus 
prophecied  truly,  or  did,  or  did  not,  teach  the  duty  of  paying  religious  homage 
to  other  beings  besides  God  ?  and,  if  so,  it  is  consequent,  according  to  the 
tests  by  Christians  acknowledged  to  be  given  by  God  himself  in  Deuteronomy, 
that  Jesus  was  not  sent  by,  or  from,  him  ;  for  if  he  was — god's  own  words 

WOULD   BE   contradicted   BY   GOD's   OWN    DEEDS. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  EVIDENCE,  EXTERNAL  AND  INTERNAL,  IN  FAVOR  OF  THE  CREDIBIUTT 
OF  THE  GOSPEL  HISTORY. 

In  the  preceding  chapters,  I  have  taken  the  New  Testament  as  I  found 
it,  and  have  argued  upon  the  supposition  that  Jesus  and  the  apostles  really 
said,  and  reasoned,  as  has  been  stated.  I  will  now  endeavour  to  show,  by 
an  examination  of  the  authenticity  of  the  four  gospels,  that  it  is  not  certain 
that  they  were  really  guilty  of  such  mistakes  as  are  related  of  them  in  those 
books. 

*  The  life  and  doctrines  of  Jesus,  and  his  followers,  are  contained  in  the 
pieces  composing  the  volume  called  the  New  Testament.  The  genuineness  of 
the  books,  i.  e.,  whether  they  were  written  by  those  to  whom  they  are 
ascribed,  must  be  judged  of,  from  the  external  testimony  concerning  them, 
and  from  internal  marks  in  the  books  themselves ;  for  the  miraculous  acts 
therein,  and  therein  onli/,  contained  and  related,  cannot  prove  the  truth  and 
authenticity  of  the  books,  because  the  authority  and  credibility  of  the  books 
themselves  must  be  firmly  established,  before  the  miracles  related  in  them 
can  reasonably  be  admitted  as  real  facts. 

*  The  reader  is  requested  by  the  author  to  understand,  and  bear  in  mind,  that  it 
is  not  at  all  intended  by  any  of  the  observations  contained  in  this  chapter  on  the 
histories  of  the  four  evangelists,  to  reflect  upon,  or  to  disparage,  the  characters  of 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  under  whose  names  they  go  ;  because  he  believes, 
and  thinks  it  is  proved  in  this  chapter,  that  the  real  authors  of  these  histories  were 
very  different  persons  from  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  ;  and  that,  in  fact,  the  accounts 
were  not  written  till  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  about  a  hundred  years  after 
the  supposed  authors  of  them  were  dead.  Of  course,  none  of  the  observations  con- 
tained in  the  chapter  relative  to  these  histories,  ware  considered,  or  intended,  to 
apply  to  any  of  the  twelve  apostles,  who  were  not  men  who  could  make  such  mistakes 
as  will  be  pointed  out.  These  mistakes  belong  entirely  to  the  authors  who  have 
assumed  their  names. — E, 


78 

Now,  the  external  evidence  in  faTour  of  these  books,  is  the  testimony  of 
those  men  called  "  the  fathers  ;"  and  as  the  value  of  testimony  depends  upon 
the  character  of  the  witnesses,  it  would  be  proper,  first,  to  state  as  much  as 
can  be  learned  of  these  men.  As  time  will  not  permit  me  to  adduce  all  that 
might  be  said  upon  this  subject,  I  shall  here  only  take  upon  me  to  assert, 
that  they  were  most  credulous,  superstitious,  and  weak  men,  and,  what  is 
woi*se,  made  no  scruple  of  falsifying,  to  support  and  favour  what  they  called 
"  the  cause  of  truth  ;"  for  they  were  writers  of  apocryphal  books,  attributing 
them  to  the  apostles,  and,  moreover,  great  miracle-mongers,  who  vamped  up 
stories  of  prodigies  to  delude  their  followers,  and  which  they  themselves 
knew  to  be  false.  I  say,  I  take  upon  me  to  assert  this ;  and  to  confirm  and 
establish  this  accusation,  I  refer  the  reader  to  Dr.  Middleton's  "  Free 
Enquiry,"  a  learned  Christian,  who,  therefore,  had  no  interest  to  misre- 
present this  matter ;  and  he  will  there  find  these  accusations  amply  verified, 
and  traits  of  character  proved  upon  them,  by  no  means  favourable  to  the 
credibility  of  their  testimony. 

The  first  of  these  Fathers  whose  testimony  is  usually  adduced  to  prore 
the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels,  is  Papias,  a  Disciple  of  John.  The  cha- 
racter given  of  him  by  Eusebius  is,  that  "  he  was  a  superstitious,  and 
credulous  man."  And  this  is  easily  proved  by  recording  some  of  the  stories, 
concerning  Jesus,  and  his  followers,  written  by  this  Papias  in  a  book  extant 
in  the  time  of  Eusebius.  One  of  these  stories  is  mentioned  by  Irenoeus,  who 
says,  that  Papias  had  it  from  John ;  who,  according  to  Papias,  said;  that 
Jesus  said,  that — "  The  days  shall  come,  in  which  there  shall  be  vines,  which 
shall  severally  have  ten  thousand  branches ;  and  every  one  of  these  branches 
shall  have  ten  thousand  lesser  branches ;  and  every  one  of  these  branches  shall 
have  ten  thousand  twigs ;  and  every  one  of  these  twigs  shall  have  ten  thousand 
clusters  of  grapes ;  and  every  one  of  these  grapes  being  pressed  shall  yield  two 
hundred  and  seventy-Jive  gallons  of  wine.  And  when  a  man  shall  take  hold  of 
any  of  these  sacred  bunches,  another  bunch  shall  cry  out  "  I  am  a  better 
bunch,  take  me,  and  bless  the  Lord  by  me!"  There's  a  Munchausen  for  you, 
reader!  Well!  this  Papias  is  the  first  witness  who  lived  after  Matthew, 
who  has  spoken  of  his  Gospel.  He  lived  about  the  year  116  after  Jesus. 
And  what  does  ho  say  of  it  ?  Why  this.  "Matthew  composed  a  writing  of 
the  Oracles  (meaning  without  doubt  the  Doctrines  of  the  Gospel,)  in  the 
Hebrew  Language,  and  every  one  interpreted  them  as  he  was  able."  So  far 
as  this  Testimony  goes  it  is  positive  evidence,  that  the  only  Gospel  of 
Matthew  extant  in  116,  was  extant  in  Hebrew ;  and  there  was  then  no  trans- 
lation of  it,  for  "every  one  interpreted  as  he  was  able."  The. present  gospel 
called  of  JNIatthew  was  then  not  written  by  him,  for  it  is  in  Greek.  And  that 
it  has  not  at  all  the  air  of  being  a  translation  is  asserted  by  most  of  the 
learned.  As  it  stands  then,  it  was  not  written  by  Matthew :  and  that  it 
cannot  be  a  translation  of  Matthew's  Hebrew,  is  not  only  plain  from  the 
circumstance  of  its  style,  and  other  marks  understood  by  Biblical  Critics, 
but  can  also  be  proved  by  another  story  related  by  this  same  Papias  concern- 
ing the  manner  of  the  death  of  Judas.  "  His  body,  and  head  (says  Papias) 
became  so  swollen,  that  at  length  he  could  not  get  through  a  street  in  Jerusa- 
lem, where  two  chariots  might  pass  abreast,  and  having  fallen  to  the  ground, 
he — burst  asunder. 

Now  though  this  ridiculous  story  is  undoubtedly  false,  yet  it  is  not 
credible  that  Papias,  who  had  so  great  a  reverence  for  the  Apostles  as  to 
collect  and  gather  all  "  their  sayings,"  would  so  flatly  by  his  story  of  the 
death  of  Judas  contradict  the  story  of  Matthew,  if  the  Hebi-ew  Gospel  of 
Matthew  contained  that  part  of  the  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew  which  relates 
the  manner  of  Judas'  Death. 


79 

Justin  Martyr  lived  afUr  Papias,  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century ; 
and  though  he  relates  many  circumstances  agreeing  in  the  main  with  those 
recorded  in  the  Gospels,  and  appears  to  quote  sayings  of  Jesus  from  some 
book  or  books  ;  yet  it  is  substantially  acknowledged  by  Dr.  Marsh,  the 
learned  annotator  on  Michaelis's  Introduction,  that  these  quotations  are  so 
unlike  the  words,  and  circumstances  in  the  received  Evangelists  to  which 
they  appear  to  correspond,  that  one  of  two  things  must  be  true  ;  either,  that 
Justin,  who  lived  140  years  after  Jesus,  had  never  seen  any  of  the  present 
Gospels ;  or  else,  that  they  were  in  his  time  in  a  very  different  state  from  what 
t?ier/  now  are. 

The  next  Christian  father  who  mentions  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  is 
Irenoeus,  who  says  also  that  "Matthew  wrote  his  gospel  in  the  Hebrew 
Language."  The  character  of  Irenjeus  is  discoverable  from  his  work  against 
the  Heresies  of  his  time,  to  that  I  refer  the  Reader,  who  will  find  him  to 
have  been  a  zealous,  though  a  very  credulous,  and  ignorant  man ;  for  he 
believed  the  story  of  Papias  just  quoted,  and  many  others  equally  absurd. 
He  however  furnishes  this  important  intelligence,  that  in  the  second  century, 
the  Christian  world  was  overrun  with  heresy,  and  a  swarm  of  apocryphal, 
and  spurious  Books  were  received  by  many  as  genuine. 

The  next  witness  in  favour  of  the  Gospel  is  Tertullian,  who  lived  in  the 
latter  end  of  the  second  centuiy.  And  the  soundness  of  his  Judgment,  and 
his  capability  to  distinguish  the  genuine  Gospels  from  among  a  hundred 
apocryphal  ones,  and  above  all  his  regard  for  truth,  may  be  judged  of  from 
these  proofs  given  by  himself.  He  asserts  upon  his  own  knowledge,  "  /  know 
it,"  says  he — "  that  the  corpse  of  a  dead  Christian,  at  the  first  breath  of  the 
prayer  made  by  the  priest,  on  occasion  of  its  own  funeral,  removed  its 
hands  from  its  sides,  into  the  usual  posture  of  a  supplicant ;  and  when  the 
service  was  ended,  restored  them  again  to  their  former  situation."  (Tertul. 
de  anima  c,  51.)  And  he  relates  as  a  fact,  which  he,  and  all  the  orthodox 
of  his  time  credited,  that—  "  the  body  of  another  Christian  already  interred 
moved  itself  to  one  side  of  the  grave  to  make  room  for  another  corpse  which 
was  going  to  be  laid  by  it."  And  it  is  on  the  testimony  of  such  men  as  these, 
that  the  authenticity  of  the  gospels  entirely' depends  as  to  external  evidence; 
for  these  are  all  the  witnesses  that  can  be  produced  as  speaking  of  them, 
who  lived  within  two  hundred  years  after  Jesus  :  Three  men,  (for  Justin 
cannot  be  reckoned  as  a  witness  in  favour  of  the  gospels.)  Three  men,  who 
are  all  of  them  evidently  credulous,  and  two  of  whom  ai'e  certainly  *****. 

To  convince  a  thinking  man  that  histories  recording  such  very  extraor- 
dinary, ill  supported,  improbable  facts  as  are  contained  in  the  gospels  are 
divine,  or  even  really  written  by  the  men  to  whom  they  are  ascribed ;  and  are 
not  either  some  of  the  many  spurious  productions  with  which  (as  we  learn 
from  Irena^us)  that  early  age  abounded,  calculated  to  astonish  the  credulous, 
and  superstitious,  or  else  writings  of  authors  who  were  themselves  infected 
with  the  grossest  superstitious  credulity ;  of  what  use  can  it  be  to  adduce 
the  testimony  of  the  very  few  writers,  of  the  same,  or  next  succeeding  age, 
when  the  very  reading  of  their  works  shews  him  that  they  themselves  were 
tainted  with  that  same  superstitious  credulity,  of  which  are  accused  the  real 
authors  of  the  New  Testament  ? 

It  is  an  obvious  rule  in  the  admission  of  evidence  in  any  cause  whatso- 
ever, that  the  more  important  the  matter  to  be  determined  by  it  is,  the  more 
unsullied  and  unexceptionable  ought  the  characters  of  tjie  ivitnesses  to  be.  And 
when  no  court  of  Justice,  in  determining  a  question  of  fraud  to  the  amount 
of  six  pence,  will  admit  the  testimony  of  witnesses  who  are  themselves 
notoriously  convicted  of  the  same  offence  of  which  the  defendant  is  accused ; 
how  can  it  be  expected,  that  any  reasonable,  unprejudiced  person,  should 


80 

admit  similar  evidence  to  be  of  weight,  in  a  case  of  the  greatest  importance 
posstbh,  not  to  himself  only,  but  to  the  whole  human  race  ? 

But  there  is  still  a  greater  defect  in  the  testimony  of  those  early  writers, 
than  their  superstitious  credulity,  I  mean  their  disregard  of  honour,  and 
veracity,  in  whatever  concerned  the  cause  of  their  particular  system. 

Though  Luke  asserts,  that  mariT/  (even  before  he  wrote  his  histories  for 
the  use  of  Theophilus,)  had  written  upon  the  same  subject :  (who  of  course 
must  have  been  of  the  Jewish  nation,)  and  many  more  must  have  been 
written  afterwards,  whose  writings  must  have  been  particularly  valuable ; 
yet  so  singularly  industrious  have  the  fathers,  and  succeeding  sons  of  the 
orthodox  church  been,  in  destroying  every  writing  upon  the  subject  of 
Christianity,  which  they  could  not  by  some  means,  or  other,  apply  to  the 
support  of  their  own  unholy  superstition,  that  no  work  of  importance 
of  any  Christian  writer,  within  the  three  first  centuries,  hath  been  permitted  to 
come  down  to  us,  except  those  books  which  they  have  thought  fit  to  adopt, 
and  transmit  to  us  as  the  canon  of  apostolic  scripture ;  and  the  works  of  a 
few  other  writers,  who  were  all  of  them,  not  only  converts  from  Paganism, 
but  men  who  had  been  educated  and  well  instructed  in  the  Philosophic 
Schools  of  the  latter  Platonists,  and  Pythagoreans. 

The  established  maxim  of  these  schools  was,  that  it  was  not  lawful  only, 
but  commendable  to  deceive,  and  assert  falsehoods  for  the  sake  of  promoting 
what  they  considered  as  the  cause  of  truth  and  piety,  and  the  effects  of  this 
maxim,  which  was  fully  acted  upon  by  both  orthodox  Christians,  and 
heretics,  produced  a  multiplicity  of  false,  and  spurious  writings  wherewith 
the  second  century  abounded. 

Nay,  they  did  not  spare  from  the  operation  of  this  maxim,  the  scriptures 
themselves.  For  they  stuffed  their  copies  of  the  Scptuagint  with  a  number 
of  interpolated  pretended  prophecies  concerning  Jesus,  and  his  death  upon 
the  cross ;  forgeries  as  weak,  and  contemptible,  and  clumsy  in  themselves,  as 
they  were  impious  and  wicked.  Whoever  desires  to  see  a  number  of  them, 
may  find  them  in  the  dispute,  or  dialogue  of  Justin  with  Trypho  the  Jew ; 
where  he  will  see  the  simple  Justin  bringing  them  out  passage  after  passage 
against  the  stubborn  Israelite,  who  contents  himself  with  cooly  answering, 
that  these  marvellous  prophecies  were  not  to  be  found  in  his  Hebrew  bible ! 

There  is  also  another  well  known,  incontrovertible  proof  of  the  deceit 
and  falsehood  of  the  leading  Christians  of  early  times,  of  which  every  person 
in  the  least  conversant  with  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  those  times  must  be 
convinced — theh"  pretended  power  of  working  miracles !  On  this  subject  I 
shall  say  nothing,  but  refer  the  reader  to  the  work  of  Dr.  Middleton  already 
mentioned,  for  an  ample  account  of  their  lying  wonders,  which  they  imposed 
as  miraculous  upon  the  simple  people. 

With  regard  to  the  internal  evidence  for  the  authenticity  of  the  writings 
composing  the  New  Testament,  it  is  still  less  satisfactory  than  the  external 
evidence.  And  this  may  be  well  believed,  when  the  reader  is  informed  that 
the  great  Sender,  after  spending  his  life  in  the  study  of  ecclesiastical  history, 
and  antiquities,  which  he  is  allowed  to  have  understood  better  than  any 
before  him,  affirmed  to  his  astonished  coreligionists,  that,  except  the  Gospel 
of  John,  and  the  Apocalypse,  the  whole  New  Testament  was  a  collection  of 
forgeries  written  by  the  partizans  of  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  parties  in  the 
Christian  church,  and  entitled  apostolic,  in  order  the  better  to  answer  their 
purpose.  This  opinion  has  been  in  part  adopted  in  England,  by  a  learned 
and  shrewd  clergyman  named  Evanson,  who  has  almost  demonstrated,  that 
the  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew  Avas  written  in  the  second  century  after  the 
birth  of  Jesus  by  a  Gentile.  For  he  proves  that  it  could  not  be  written  by 
a  Jew,  on  account  oi geographical  mistakes,  and  manifest  ignorance  of  Jewish 


81 

mutoms.  He  also  gives  good  reasons  for  rejecting  the  authenticity  of  some 
of  the  epistles.  In  short,  he  has  poured  such  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  eyes 
of  his  terrified  brethren,  as  will,  ere  long,  no  doubt  enable  them  to  see  a  little 
«learer  than  heretofore. 

He  gives  several  instances  of  geogi'aphical  blunders  in  Matthew.  I 
•ball  mention  only  one.  Matthew  says,  in  the  2nd  chapter,  that  whea 
Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary,  returned  from  Egypt,  "  hearing  that  Archelaus 
reigned  in  Judea,  he  was  afraid  to  go  thither,  and  therefore  turned  aside,  into 
the  parts  of  Galilee."  Now  this,  as  will  appear  from  a  map  of  Palestine,  is 
Just  like  saying,  "  a  man  at  Philadelphia,  intending  to  go  to  the  State  of  New 
York,  on  his  route  heard  something  which  made  him  afraid  to  go  thither, 
and  therefore  he  turned  aside — into  Boston  !" 

That  the  author  of  that  Gospel  was  ignorant  of  Jewish  customs  will  be 
•Tident  from  the  following  circumstances.  He  says  Jesus  told  Peter,  that 
before  the  cock  crew  he  would  deny  him  thrice ;  and  that  afterwards,  when 
Peter  was  cursing  and  swearing,  saying  "  I  know  not  the  man  !  immediately 
4he  cock  crew."  Now  it  is  unfortunate  for  the  ci-edit  of  this  story,  that  it  is 
well  known,  that  in  conformity  with  Jewish  customs,  at  that  time  subsisting, 
no  cocks  were  allowed  to  be  in  Jerusalem,  where  Jesus  was  apprehended. 
This  is  known,  and  acknowledged  by  learned  Christians,  who  have  extricated 
themselves  from  this  difficulty,  by  proving  that  the  crowing  of  the  cock,  here 
mentioned,  does  not  mean,  as  it  appears  to  mean,  absolutely  the  ci'owing  of 
*  cock,  but  that  it  means — what  dost  thou  think  reader  ?  why  it  means — 
the  sound  of  a  trumpet!!* 

According  to  Luke,  as  soon  as  Jesus  was  dead,  Joseph  of  Arimathea  went 
to  Pilate,  and  begged  his  body,  and  hasted  to  buiy  it,  because  the  Sabbath 
(which  began  at  sunset,)  drew  on ;  that  his  female  disciples  attended  the 
burial ;  observed  how  the  body  was  placed  in  the  sepulchre,  and  returned  and 
prepared  spices  and  ointments  to  embalm  it  with,  be/or-e  the  Sabbath  com- 
menced ;  and  then  rested  the  Sabbath  day,  according  to  the  commandment. 

The  pretended  Matthew,  however,  tells  us,  that  "  tvhen  the  even  was  come," 
(i.  e.,  when  the  Sabbath  day  was  actually  begun,)  Joseph  went  to  beg  the  body 
— took  it  down,  wi-appcd  it  in  linen,  and  buried  it ;  and  that  Mary  Magdalene 
and  the  other  Mary,  were  sitting  over  against  the  sepulchre.  From  the  time 
that  this  writer  has  thought  fit  to  allot  for  the  burial  of  Jesus,  it  is  evident, 

*  That  the  pretended  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  not  written  by  Matthew,  or  by  an 
inhabitant  of  Palesdne,  may  also  be  inferred,  I  think,  from  the  blundering  attempts 
of  the  author  of  it  to  give  the  meaning  of  some  expressions  uttered  by  Jesus,  and 
used  by  the  Jews,  in  the  language  of  the  country,  which  was  the  Syro  Chaldaic;  and 
which  the  real  Matthew  could  hardly  be  ignorant  of.  For  instance,  he  says  that 
Golgotha  signifies — "the  2}lace  of  a  skidl."  Matthew  xxvii.  33.  Now,  this  is 
not  true,  for  Golgotha,  or  as  it  should  have  been  written,  Golgoltha,  does  not 
signify  *•'  the  place  of  a  skull,"  but  simply  "  a  skull."  The  Gospels  according  to 
Mark,  and  John,  are  guilty  of  the  same  mistake,  and  thus  betray  the  same  marks  of 
Gentilism.  Again,  the  pretended  Matthew  says,  that  Jesus  cried  on  the  cross,  "  Eli 
Eli  lama,  sabackthani,"  which  he  says  meant,  "My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me?"  (Matthew  xxvii.  46.)  If  the  reader  will  look  at  what  Michaelis,  in 
his  introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  says  upon  this  subject,  he  will  find  the  real 
Syro  Chaldaic  expression  which  must  have  been  used  by  Jesus,  to  be  so  different  from 
the  one  given  by  the  supposed  Matthew,  that  he  will,  (and  the  observation  is  not 
meant  as  a  disparagement  to  the  real  Matthew,  who  certainly  had  no  hand  in  the 
composition  of  the  Gospel  covered  with  his  name)  I  suspect  be  inclined  to  believe, 
that  this  pretended  Matthew's  knowledge  of  the  vulgar  language  of  the  Jews,  used  in 
Christ's  time,  must  have  been  about  upon  a  par  with  the  honest  sailor's  knowledge  of 
French ;  who  assured  his  countrymen,  on  his  return  home,  that  the  French  called  a 
horse  a  shovel,  and  a  hat  a  chopper  ! — E. 
K 


82 

that  he  was  not  only  oio  Jew,  but  so  ignorant  of  the  customs  of  the  Jews,  that 
he  did  not  know  that  their  day  always  began  with  the  evening,  or  he  would 
never  have  employed  Joseph  in  doing  what  no  Jew  would,  nor  dared  to  have 
done,  after  the  commencement  of  the  Sabbath.  He  takes  no  notice  at  all  of 
the  preparation  made  by  the  women,  mentioned  by  Luke ;  for  that  would 
not  have  agreed  with  the  sequel  of  his  story.  But  to  make  up  for  that 
omission,  he  informs  us  of  a  circumstance  not  mentioned  at  all  by  the  other 
Evangelists.  For  he  tells  us  that  "  on  the  next  day  which  foUoweth  the  day 
of  preparation,  the  Chief  Priests,  and  Pharisees  came  together  unto  Pilate, 
&c.  "  The  next  day  which  foUoweth  the  day  of  preparation !  !" — such  is 
the  periphrasis  that  he  uses  for  the  Sabbath  day !  It  is  well  known  that 
among  the  Jews  it  was,  and  is,  customary  to  prepare,  and  set  out,  in  the 
afternoon  of  the  Friday,  all  the  food  -and  necessaries  for  every  family  during 
the  Sabbath  day.  Because  they  were  forbidden  to  light  a  fire,  or  do  any 
servile  work  on  that  day ;  and  therefore  Friday  was  very  properly  called 
"  the  day  of  preparation."  But  it  appears  to  me  next  to  impossible  that  any 
Jew  would  call  the  sabbath  "  the  day  that  foUoweth  the  day  of  the  prepara- 
tion." Yet  this  singular  historian  so  denominates  it,  and  moreover,  goes  on 
to  inform  us,  that  the  chief  priests,  and  Pharisees  went  to  Pilate  to  ask  for 
a  guard  to  place  round  the  sepulchre,  till  the  third  day,  to  prevent  his 
disciples  from  stealing  away  his  body,  and  then  saying,  that  he  was  risen 
from  the  dead ;  and  that  after  obtaining  the  governor's  permission,  "  they 
went,  and  secured  the  sepulchre  by  sealing  the  stone  that  was  rolled  against  it, 
and  setting  a  watch."  Though  there  appears  nothing  very  strange  in  this 
account  to  a  Christian,  yet,  I  assure  my  reader,  that  to  the  Jews,  it  ever  did, 
and  must  appear  utterly  inci'edible.  For  it  is  wonderful !  that  the  Jewish 
rulers,  and  the  rigorous  Pharisees  should  in  so  public  a  m,anner  thus  violate 
the  precept  for  observing  the  Sabbath  day ;  for  the  penalty  of  this  action  of 
theirs  was  no  less  than  death !  More  wonderful  still  is  it  that  they  should 
have  so  much  better  attended  to,  and  comprehended  the  meaning  of  the 
prediction  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  than  his  own  disciples  did ;  and  most 
wonderful  of  all,  that  a  Roman  Proconsul  should  consent  to  let  his  troops 
keep  watch  round  a  tomb,  for  fear  it  should  be  thought  that  a  dead  man  was 
come  to  life  again. 

But  though  our  author's  history  of  these  exti'aordinary  facts  is  neither 
consistent  with  reason,  and  probability,  nor  with  the  other  histories  of  the 
same  event ;  it  proceeds  in  pretty  strict  conformity  to  the  manner  in  which 
it  sets  out.  For  to  convince  us  still  more  fully  that  the  author  was  totally 
ignorant  of  the  mode  of  computing  time  in  use  among  the  Jews,  and 
habituated  to  that  in  use  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  ;  he  reckons  the 
Sabbath  to  last  till  day  light  on  Sunday  morn,  and  says,  (chapter  xxviii.), 
"  that  in  the  end  of  the  Sabbath,  as  it  began  to  dawn,  towards  the  first  day  of 
the  week,"  the  two  Marys  before  mentioned,  came,  (not  as  in  Luke,  to 
embalm  the  body,  for,  with  a  guard  round  the  sepulchre,  that  would  have 
been  impracticable,  but)  to  see  the  sepulchre.  Whilst  they  wore  there,  the 
author  tells  us,  there  was  another  great  earthquake,  and  an  angel  descended, 
rolled  away  the  stone,  and  sat  upon  it,  at  whose  sight  the  soldiers  trembled, 
and  were  frighted  to  death.  But  to  prevent  the  like  efteet  of  his  appearance 
upon  the  women,  he  said  unto  them,,  fear  not  ye,  for  I  know  that  ye  seek 
Jesus  who  was  crucified.  That  the  women  as  well  as  the  soldiers  were 
present  at  the  descent  of  this  angel,  appears  not  only  from  there  being 
nobody  else,  by  whom  these  uncommon  circumstances  could  have  been 
related,  but  also  by  the  pronoun  personal  ye  inserted  in  the  original  Greek, 
which  in  that  language  is  never  done,  unless  it  be  emphatically  to  mark 
such  a  distinction,  or  anithesis,  as  there  was  on  this  occasion,  between  them 


88 

and  the  Roman  guard.  Here,  however,  the  author  is  inadvertently  incon- 
sistent with  himself,  as  well  as  with  the  other  evangelists;  and  forgetting 
that  the  sole  intent  of  rolling  away  the  stone,  was  to  open  a  passage, 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  body  of  Jesus  to  come  forth  out  of  the  sepulchre ; 
and  that  if  he  had  risen  and  come  forth  after  the  angel  had  rolled  it  away, 
both  the  women  and  the  sokliers  must  have  seen  him  rise,  he  makes  the  angel 
bid  them  look  into  the  sepulchre,  to  see — that  he  was  not  there!  and  tell 
them  that  he  was  already  risen;  and  that  he  was  gone  before  them,  into 
Oalilee,  where  they  shoidd  see  him,!  In  their  way,  the  author  adds,  Jesus 
himself  met  the  women,  and  said,  "  be  not  afraid,  go  tell  my  brethren  to  go 
into  Galilee,  and  there  shall  they  see  me : "  He  says  that  the  eleven  apostles 
went  into  Galilee,  to  an  appointed  mountain,  and  saw  him  there ;  notwith- 
standing that  some  of  them  were  so  incredulous,  as  not  to  believe  even  tho 
testimony  of  their  own  senses. 

•  In  the  interim,  whilst  the  women  were  going  to  the  apostles,  the  author 
tells  us,  "some  of  the  watch;"  some  strictly  disciplined  Roman  soldiers  left 
their  station  to  bring  an  account  of  what  had  passed,  not  to  the  Governor 
their  General,  nor  to  any  of  their  own  officers — but  to  the  chief  priests  of  the 
Jews !  that  they  assembled  a  council  of  the  elders  upon  the  occasion,  and 
after  deliberating  what  was  to  be  done,  induced  the  soldiers,  by  large  bribes, 
to  run  the  risk  of  being  put  to  death  themselves,  upon  the  highly  improbable 
chance  of  the  Jewish  rulers  having  influence  sufficient  with  the  Roman 
Proconsul,  to  prevail  on  him  to  submit  to  the  indelible  infamy  of  neglecting 
the  discipline  of  the  army  under  his  command,  to  such  a  degree,  as  to  suffer 
an  entire  guard  of  soldiers  avowedly  to  sleep  upon  their  station,  without  any 
notice  being  taken  of  it !  and  to  say  "  his  disciples  came  and  stole  him  away 
whilst  we  slept."  This  incredible  story  is  another  instance  how  necessary  it 
is,  that  those  who  do  not  adhere  closely  to  the  truth,  should  have  extraor- 
dinary good  memories  to  enable  them  to  keep  clear  of  absurdities,  or 
palpable  contradictions  in  their  narrations.  For,  consider  the  circumstances. 
How  were  the  tongues  of  these  soldiers  to  be  restrained  among  the 
inquisitive  inhabitants  of  a  large  city,  (at  that  time  too,  greatly  crowded  on 
account  of  the  paschal  feast,)  not  only  in  their  way  to  the  chief  priests ;  but 
also  during  the  whole  time  while  the  priests  assembled  the  Sanhedrim,  and 
were  deliberating  what  was  to  be  done  ?  And  if  that  part  of  the  watch,  who, 
the  author  says,  came  to  inform  the  chief  priests,  were  poltroons  enough  for 
the  sake  of  a  bribe  to  undergo  so  shameful  a  disgrace  to  themselves,  as  well 
as  to  hazard  the  resentment  of  their  General,  how  could  they  undertake  that 
all  their  comrades  who  remained  at  the  sepulchre  would  do  the  same  ?  and  to 
what  purpose  could  the  Jewish  council  bribe  some,  without  a  possibility  of 
some  one  knowing  how  the  rest  of  the  corps  would  act  ?  And  even 
supposing  all  these  difficulties  surmounted,  and  that  the  whole  guard  had 
agreed,  and  persisted  in  saying,  "  his  disciples  stole  him  away  while  we 
slept,"  of  what  service  could  that  be  to  the  Jewish  rulers?  For  if  the  guards 
were  asleep,  they  could  be  no  evidence  to  prove  that  the  body  was  taken  away; 
and  it  might  be  just  as  probable  that  he  might  rise  to  life  again  while  the 
■watch  was  asleep,  as  it  was  if  no  watch  had  been  set. 

In  a  word,  it  appears  from  the  numbers  of  Latin  words  in  Greek  char- 
acters, which  this  book  contains ;  from  the  numerous  geographical  blunders ; 
and  the  author's  evident  ignorance  of  the  customs  of  the  Jews :  from  the 
form  of  Baptism  enjoined  at  the  conclusion,  which  was  not  in  use  in  the  first 
century,  as  appears  from  the  form  mentioned  as  then  used  in  the  Acts  ;  from 
the  Roman  Centurion's  being  made  to  call  Jesus  "  a  Son  of  a  God,"  which 
words  in  the  mouth  of  a  Pagan  could  only  mean  that  he  must  be  a  Demi- 
god, like  Bacchus,  Hercules,  or  Esculapius  :  it  is  clear  that  tills  Gospel  is  the 


84 

patched  work  composition  of  some  convert  from  tho  Pagan  schools.  At  any 
rate,  his  gospel  flatly  contradicts  the  others  in  several  important  particiilari 
in  the  history  of  the  Resurrection.  For  ho  represents  the  apostles  as  being 
commanded  by  the  Angel  and  by  Jesus,  to  go  to  Galilee,  in  order  to  see  himj 
and  that  they  went  their,  and  saw  him  on  a  mountain.  Yet  it  is  said  by  tho 
other  Evangelists,  see  Luke,  ch.  24,  and  Acts  1,  that  he  appeared  on  tho  sain^ 
day  of  the  resurrection  to  Peter  at  Jeruselem;  to  two  other  disciples  as  thoy 
went  to  Emmaus  ;  and  on  the  succeeding  night  to  this  whole  congregation  of 
the  Disciples,  not  in  Galilee,  but  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  by  his  express  com- 
tnand  the  apostles  did  not  go  into  Galileo,  but  remained  at  Jerusalem  till  tho 
feast  of  Pentecost. 

But  as  this  author  difters  froln  the  other  Evangelists,  so  they  also  difiFer 
among  themselves.  And  the  latter  part  of  the  last  chapter  of  Mark  is  so 
irreconcilable  to  the  other  historians  of  tho  resurrection,  that  in  many 
Manuscripts  it  is  foun'd  omitted.  And  that  gospel  ends  in  them,  at  the  eighth 
verse  of  the  last  chapter.  And  Mr.  West,  in  his  attempted  reconciliation  of 
their  accounts  of  the  resurection,  is  obliged  to  make  a  number  of  postulates, 
to  take  a  number  of  things  for  granted,  which  might  be  denied  :  and  after 
elaborately  arranging  the  Stage  for  tho  performance,  he  sets  the  women,  and 
the  disciples  a  driving  backwards,  and  forwards,  from  •  tho  city  to  tho 
sepulchre,  and  from  the  sepulchi-e  to  the  city,  and  so  agitated  that  they 
forgot  to  know  each  other  when  they  cross  in  their  journeys.  Notwith- 
standing his  great  ingenuity  in  reconciling  contradictions,  in  which  he  beats 
Surenhusius  himself,  he  makes  but  a  sorry  piece  of  work  of  it  after  all.  He 
had  much  better  have  let  it  alone  ;  for  his  work  upon  the  resurrection  which 
he  calls  "  the  main  fact  of  Christianity,"  displays  these  contradictions  in  so 
glaring  a  light,  that  the  very  laboured  ingenuity  of  his  methods  of  reconci- 
liation, inevitablj,  suggests  "confirmation  strong"  to  the  keen-eyed  reader, 
of  that  irreconcilability  which  the  author  endeavors  to  refute.  Whai 
rational  man  therefore  can  reasonably  be  required  to  believe  the  story  of  a 
resurrection  pretended  to  have  been  seen  and  known,  only  by  the  party 
interested  in  making  it  believed !  when  in  their  testimony  even,  they  do  not 
agree  but  contradict  each  other  ? 

There  is  really  an  immense  number  of  discrepancies  and  contradictions 
in  the  New  Testament  which  the  acumen  of  learned  Christians  has  of  late 
discovered,  and  pointed  out  to  the  world.  And  Mr.  Evanson,  in  his  work  on 
"  the  Dissonance  of  tho  four  Evangelists,"  has  collected  a  mass  enough,  I 
should  think,  to  terrify  the  most  determined  Reconciliator  that  ever  lived. 
It  is  a  little  remarkable,  that  Mr.  Evanson  has  asserted,  and  has  proved,  tho 
spuriousness  of  the  Gospel  ascribed  to  John,  which  Semler  spared,  in  tho 
general  wreck  which  he  made  of  the  authenticity  of  the  other  books  of  tho 
New  Testament.  Mr.  Evanson  says,  in  his  examination  of  it,  what  has  been 
said  before,  that  the  speeches  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  it,  are  most  incoherent, 
contradictory,  and  falsified  by  well  known  facts.  And  indeed  the  author  of 
the  book  itself,  seems  to  be  sensible  of  this  ;  for  he  very  naturally  represents 
the  Jews  repeatedly  accusing  Jesus  of  being  mad.  "  He  hath  a  devil,  and  is 
mad,  (say  they  to  the  multitude)  why  hear  ye  him  ?"  and  so  in  other  places. 
Mr.  Evanson  considei's  this  work  as  the  composition  of  a  converted  Platonist 
or  of  a  Platonizing  Jew ;  the  latter  we  think  to  be  the  most  correct  opinion; 
since  it  is  evident  that  the  author  of  that  gospel  had  the  works  of  Fhilo  at 
his  fingers'  ends,  which  is  more  than  can  be  supposed  of  John.  As  Semler 
excepted  the  Gospel  of  John  only,  so  Mr.  Evanson  excepts  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  only  from  the  charge  of  spuriousness :  though  he  says  that  it  is  grossly 
corrupted,  and  interpolated.  From  these  corruptions  and  interpplations,  ho 
endeavours  to  purify  it ;  in  which  attempt  wo  think  he  has  had  very  indif- 


85 

ferent  success.  la  short,-  his  work  has  proved,  (what  he  did  not  himself 
contemplate)  that  the  providence  of  the  God  of  truth  has  taken  care,  that  so 
many  absurdities  and  contradictions,  should  be  contained  in  these  books  of 
the  New  Testament  which  were  written  to  establish  a  mistake,  as  must  I 
conceive,  satisfy  any  man,  who  has  them  once  pointed  out  to  him,  that  th© 
doctrine  of  those  books  is  not,  and  cannot  be  from  God. 

But  it  may  be  still  asked,  "  how  did  this  notion  of  the  resurrection  of 
^esus  become  current?"  "  How  can  you  account  for  the  apostles  believing 
such  a  thing  ?"  We  answer  sincerely — we  cannot  absolutely  ascertain.  The 
Jews  of  that  age  have  left  no  documents  upon  this  business.  The  origin  of 
the  Christian  religion  is  so  extremely  obscure,  that  Josephus  takes  no  notice 
of  it  at  all,  (for  the  passage  relating  to  Christian  affairs  now  found  iu 
Josephus  are  notorious  interpolations.)  And  it  is  evident  from  the  Chrono- 
logical, and  other  mistakes  about  Jesus  in  the  Talmud,  that  the  curiosity  of 
the  learned  Jews  had  never  been  interested  by  Christianity,  till  so  long  after 
Jesus,  that  the  memory  of  him,  and  his,  was  almost  entirely  lost  among  that 
nation.  And  it  appears  from  the  last  chapter  of  the  Acts,  that  when  Paul 
■was  received  by  the  Jews  at  Romfe,  he  had  not  been  considered  by  the  Jews 
of  Jenisalem  as  of  sufficient  importance,  as  to  cause  them  to  warn  their 
brethren  of  the  Dispersion  concerning  him  ;  for  these  Jews  tell  Paul,  on  his 
enquiring,  that  they  had  not  received  any  letters  concerning  him  from 
Jerusalem.     So  that  we  can  offer  nothing  but  conjecture,  to  solve  the  difficulty. 

It  has  been  said  by  some,  (and  it  is  by  no  means  an  hypothesis  destitute 
of  plausibility)  that  Jesus  was  indeed  crucified,  but  did  not  actually  die  oa 
the  cross.  It  is  evident  that  Pilate  was  exti'emely  desirous  to  save  his  life ; 
and  is  it  impossible  that  the  Roman<6oldiers,  who  crucified  him,  had  secret 
orders  f  Consider  the  ciscumstances.  He  was  crucified  at  our  nine  in  the 
morning,  and  was  taken  from  the  Cfoss  at  about  three  in  the  afternoon. 
Now,  crucifixion  is  not  a  death  which  kills  men  in  six  hours ;  and  men  have 
been  known  to  have  lived  fastened  to  the  cross  for  more  than  two  days. 
Consider,  besides,  that  when  the  soldiers  gave  the  coup  de  grace  to  the  two 
robbers,  that  they  did  not  break  the  legs  of  Jesus.  This,  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  John  says,  they  did,  in  order  to  fulfill  a  prophecy ;  but  I 
leave  it  to  my  reader,  whether  it  is  not  more  likely  that  they  did  so  in  order 
to  fidfill  secret  orders "?  But  to  make  up  for  that  omission,  the  author  adds, 
that  they  pierced  Jesus  with  a  spear.  Now,  besides  that  this  is  not  mentioned 
by  the  other  Evangelists,  the  very  manner  in  which  this  circumstance  is 
mentioned,  and  eagerly  affirmed  by  him,  looks  as  if  the  author  was  aware  of 
the  likelihood  of  a  susjjicion  of  the  fact  we  are  trying  to  prove  probable,  and 
that  he  wrote  this  in  order  to  obviate  it.  And  after  all,  the  gospel  according 
to  John  was  certainly  not  written  by  him,  and,  therefore,  what  the  author  of 
it  observes,  may  be  true,  or  not.  You  will  observe  also,  reader,  that  the  body 
of  Jesus  was  given  by  Pilate  to  his  friends  immediately ;  a  favour  never  vouch- 
safed by  the  Romans  in  such  a  case,  except  "speciali  gratia."  You  will 
observe  also,  that  the  body  was  taken  down  by  his  friends,  no  doubt  with  great 
care  ;  probably  was  washed  from  the  blood,  and  rubbed  perfectly  dry ;  and  waa 
deposited  in  the  cave  or  sepulchre,  with  a  large  quantity  of  spices,  and 
aromatics.  Now  suppose  that  Jesus  only  swooned  on  the  cross,  and  that  his 
naked  body,  after  being  cleansed  as  aforesaid,  was  laid  in  the  new  sepulchre 
where  the  air  was  cool  and  fresh,  wrapped  in  a  considerable  quantity  of  dry 
linen,  together  with  many,  spices,  and  aromatics,  what  could  be  mora 
opportune,  or  proper,  to  stimulate  his  drowsed  senses,  and  recall  the  unfor- 
tunate sufferer  to  life  ?  Suppose  then,  that  on  awaking  from  his  trance,  he 
disengaged  himself,  and  took  himself  away  as  secretly  as  possible.  Might 
not  all  this  have  happened?     Is  it  impossible?     And  does  it  not  look 


86 

plausible  ?  It  is  not  improbable  that  he  might  after  this  hare  shewed  himself 
privately  to  his  particular  disciples  ;  for  you  will  recollect,  reader,  that  the 
appearances  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  afttr  his  crucifixion  were  to  them  only^ 
and  for  the  most  part  in  M«  night.  And  it  is  by  no  means  impossible,  that 
the  twelve  apostles,  who  were,  I  doubt  not,  well  meaning  men,  though 
extremely  simple  and  credulous ;  I  say  it  is  thus  by  no  means  impossible, 
that  they  might  have  believed  sincerely,  that  their  master  had  risen  from  tho 
dead.  This  hypothesis  must  not  be  considered  only  as  the  brain  work  of  an 
unbelieving  sceptic ;  for  it  has  been  (in  its  main  principle)  advanced,  and 
elaborately  defended  by  Dr.  Paulus  tho  professor  of  divinity  in  the  principal 
University  in  Bavaria. 

It  is  true,  that  it  may  be  said,  that  this  is  all  hypothesis,  and  men 
conjecture.  We  allow  it;  it  is  true;  and  we  assert  that  the  account  given  by 
the  Evangelists  is  no  better,  nay,  worse  than  conjecture,  as  it  is  a  mere 
forgery  of  the  second  century !  For  no  man,  wo  think,  who  knows  all  that 
has  been  made  known  by  biblical  critics,  in  later  years,  will  now  seriously 
contend  for  the  literal  truth  of  that  account.     [See  Appendix  A.] 

If  all  this  will  not  satisfy  the  man  that  "  believeth  all  things,"  our  last 
resource  is  to  deny  the  fact  of  this  resurrection.  And  this  we  can  do  with 
perfect  sang  froid,  as  we  know  very  well  that  it  cannot  be  proved;  for  tho 
only  testimony  in  favour  of  it,  are  the  four  evangelists ;  four  witnesses,  tho 
like  of  whose  written  testimony,  with  reference  thereto,  (being  as  contradict 
tory  as  that  is,)  to  say  no  more,  certainly  would  not,  we  believe,  be  received  in 
a  modern  court  of  justice,  to  settle  titefact  about  a  debt  of  five  dollars.  And 
if  it  be  still  urged,  that  such  a  story  is  unparalleled,  and  therefore  respectable ; 
we  say  that  it  is  not  unparalleled;  as  we  have  an  account  of  a  false 
Messiah,  who  applied  the  prophecies  to  himself,  had  a  forerunner,  and  more 
than  two  hundred  thousand  followers,  who  publicly  acknowledged  him  for  the 
Messiah,  raised  contributions,  and. supported  him  magnificently.  He  too 
quoted  the  prophets  as  speaking  concerning  him,  and  was  said  to  have  worked 
divers  miracles,  and  was  ultimately  put  to  death  by  the  order  of  the  Grand 
Seignor  at  Constantinople ;  yet  nevertheless  was  said  to  have  been  seen  again 
hy  certain  of  his  followers,  who  wrote  books  in  favour  of  that  fact,  and  of  his 
Messiahship.  Many  learned  Rabbins  enrolled  themselves  as  his  disciples,  and 
wrtfe  controversial  works  in  his  cause,  as  Paid  did.  And  to  conclude,  his 
party  was'  not  entirely  extinct  within  a  very  few  years.  Yet,  notwithstanding 
all  tills,  he  was  an  impostor ;  and  no  man  now  believes  the  stories  of  his 
miracles,  or  his  resurrection  ;  notwithstanding  that  both  are  affirmed  by  more 
recent,  more  learned,  and  more  respectable  testimony  than  is,  or  can  be, 
oflFered,  in  favour  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  The  name  of  this  famous 
impostor  was  Shabathai  Tzevi,  and  his  history  is  given  by  Basnage,  in  his 
history  of  the  Jews,  [and  by  other  writers  of  Jewish  history.  See  on  this 
subject  the  Sepher  Torath  Uakenaoth,  page  2.  The  learned  Mr.  Zedner  has 
extracted  the  life  of  Shabetai  Tsebi  from  this  book,  and  published  it,  with 
a  German  translation,  in  his  Auswahl  historischer  Stucke  aus  Hebraischen 
Schriftstellern,  Berlin,  1840.— D.] 

I  wish  the  Christian  reader  to  peruse  carefully,  and  cooly,  that  account; 
and  if  he  then  persists  in  believing  the  history  given  by  the  evangelists, — 
with  such  faith  as  his,  he  certainly  ought  to.be  able  to  move  mountains; 
and  I  have  no  doubt  at  all,  that  with  such  a  good  natured  understanding  as 
his,  if  he  had  found  in  his  New  Testament  the  story  of  Jonah  misquoted,  and 
and  by  a  small  transposition  a  la  mode  de  Surenhusius,  representing  that 
"Jonah  swallowed  the  whale  f"  this  sturdy  "confidence  in  things  not  seen," 
would,  I  doubt  not  have  enabled  him  without  difficulty  to  swallow  the 
prophet  rvith  the  whale  in  his  belly. 


87 
CHAPTER  XVII. 

on    IHE     PECULIAB    MOBALITY    OF    THE     NEW    TESTAMENT,     AS    IT    AFFECTS    INDIVIDCAM. 

I  HAVE  already  expressed  my  respcet  for  the  character  of  Jesus. 
And  I  again  declare,  that  I  request  it  may  be  distinctly  understood,  that 
by  nothing  that  I  have  said  do  I  intend  to  impeach,  or  to  deprecate  hig 
moral  character.  Whatever  may  have  been  his  defects,  or  whatever  were 
his  foibles,  they  must  have  been  the  faults  of  his  mind,  not  of  his  heart. 
For,  though  he  may  have  been  a  mistaken  enthusiast ;  yet  I  do  firmly  believe, 
that,  with  such  a  character  as  he  is  represented  to  have  possessed}  he  could 
not  have  been  either  a  hypocrite,  or  a  wilful  impostor.  And  if  it  be  replied, 
that  I  have,  by  some  observations  on  his  conduct,  indirectly  impeached  the 
perfection  of  his  moral  character ;  I  answer,  that  if  so,  it  is  certainly  my 
misfortune,  but  it  may  not  be  his  fault.  To  explain  this  observation,  I 
request  the  reader  to  recall  to  mind,  that  Jesus  wrote  nothing  himself;  that 
the  only  accounts  we  have  of  him,  are  contained  in  books,  probably 
apocryphal,  certainly  not  generally  known  till  after  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  from  his  birth.  The  gospels  now  extant  do  not  appear  to  have  been 
known  to  Justin  Martyr ;  and  the  earliest  fathers,  in  their  writings,  generally 
quote  traditions  concerning  Jesus,  instead  of  histories.  Since  these  things 
are  so,  who  knows,  but  that  the  authors  of  the  histories  of  him  now  extant, 
have  attributed  to  him  words  and  actions  of  which  he  was  guiltless.  We 
know  how  prone  mankind  are  to  invent  falsehoods  concerning  eminent  men ; 
for  instance,  Mahomet  expressly  disclaimed  the  power  of  working  miracles, 
and  yet  the  writings  of  his  early  followers  ascribe  hundreds  to  him.  Why 
may  it  not  be  possible  then,  since  Jesus  wrote  nothing  himself,  that  these 
books  ascribe  to  him  words  and  actions  he  neither  spake  nor  performed  ? 
God  grant  that  this  may  one  day  be  proved !  For  I  should  rejoice  to  find 
the  meek,  gentle,  and  amiable  man  of  Nazareth  proved  guiltless  of  the 
follies  and  impieties  attributed  to  him  in  the  New  Testamept  as  I  find  it,  and 
to  reason  concerning  the  works  and  Avords  of  Jesus,  as  I  find  them  there 
expressed,  yet  I  would  earnestly  request  the  reader  to  consider  me  willing 
and  desirous  to  exempt  the  author,  or  rather  the  cause  of  the  Christian 
religion,  from  the  reproach  of  the  sentiments  I  am  bound  by  my  regard  for 
one  God,  and  his  attributes,  to  express  for  the  system  itself.  Yes !  I  can  in 
my  own  mind  separate  Jesus  from  his  religion  and  his  followers.  I  read 
■with  admiration  many  of  his  beautiful  parables.  I  shall  ever  contemplate 
his  mildness,  and  benevolence  with  respect ;  and  I  peruse,  with  pity,  the 
recital  of  his  sufferings,  and  cruel  death.  All  this  I  have  done,  and  I  believe 
I  shall  ever  do ;  but  I  cannot!  I  cannot,  in  effect,  deny  the  one  living  and 
true  God,  and  renounce  my  reason,  and  common  sense,  by  believing  aU  the 
contradictory  and  strange  doctrines  contained  in  the  New  Testament. 

Having  unburthened  my  mind  upon  this  subject,  and  frankly  expressed 
my  sentiments  and  feelings  with  regard  to  the  character  of  Jesus ;  I  hope  I 
miay  now  be  allowed  (without  incurring  the  charge  of  maliciously  exposing 
him,  or  the  twelve  apostles,  to  reproach)  to  state  my  opinions  with  regard  to 
the  merit  of  the  moral  maxims,  ascribed  to  him  and  them,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. And  I  again  caution  the  reader,  that  he  is  not  obliged  to  lay  to  his, 
or  their,  charge,  the  mischievous  consequences  that  originated  from  acting 
upon  these  maxims  and  principles,  since  it  is  by  no  means  impossible  that 
they  may  have  been_/a?se^3i(  ascribed  to  him  and  to  them. 

Now  then,  let  us  attend  to  the  subject  of  the  chapter,  viz.,  the  moral 
maxims  ascribed  to  Jesus.     These  moral  maxims  consist  of  1st,  Those  which 


88 

were  adopted  by  him  from  the  Old  Testament.  2d,  Those  of  which  ho 
himself  is  described  as  the  author.  With  the  consideration  of  those  of  the 
first  class  I  shall  not  trouble  the  reader,  but  shall  devote  this  chapter  to  the 
examination  of  those  which  are  supposed  to  have  originated  from  him. 
These  are,  Ist,  '  Do  to  others  what  you  would  that  others  should  do  to  you.* 
2d,  '  Resist  not  the  injurious  person ;  but  if  a  man  smite  thee  on  one  cheek, 
turn  to  him  the  other  also.'  3d,  '  K  a  man  ask  thy  cloak,  give  him  thy  coat 
also.'  4th,  '  If  thou  wouldest  be  perfect,  sell  all  that  thou  hast,  and  give  to 
the  poor ;  and  come  follow  me.'  5th,  '  Unless  a  man  hate  his  father,  and 
mother,  and  wife,  and  children,  and  possessions,  yea,  and  his  own  Ufa  also,  he 
«aunot  be  my  disciple.'     6th,  '  Take  no  thought  for  the  morrow.' 

With,  regard  to  the  first  of  these  maxims,  it  does  hot  belong  to  Jesus» 
(U  the  author.  It  is  found  in  the  book  of  Tobit,  chapter  iv.  15,  and  it  was  a 
maxim  well  known  to  the  Rabbins.  It  is  found  in  the  Talmud  verbatim. 
"  What  thou  wouldest  not  have  done  to  thee,  do  not  thou  to  another." 
(Tal.  Bab.  Schabbat.  fol.  31.)  So  also  Hillel  addressed  a  proselyte  thus, 
"  What  is  hateful  to  thee,  do  not  thou  to  thy  neighbour."  Several  other 
expressions  of  Jesus  wpre,  it  appears  from  the  Talmud,  proverbial  expressions 
in  use  among  the  Jews.  For  instance,  the  original  of  that  saying  recorded 
Matthew  vii.  2.  "  With  whatsoever  measure  ye  mete,"  &c.,  is  found  in  the 
Talmud  of  Babylon  (Sanhedrim  fol.  100,  Sotah,  chapter  4,  7,  8,  9.)  "  With 
whatsoever  measure  any  one  metes  it  shall  be  measured  to  him."  So  also 
the  original  of  that  expression  of  "  Cast  out  the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye, 
and  then  thou  shalt  see  clearly  to  cast  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's  eye,"  is 
to  be  found  in  the  Talmud.* 

What  is  called  by  Christians  "  the  Lord's  Prayer,"  is  merely  a  few 
clauses  taken  from  Jewish  prayers,  and  put  together.  Very  many  instances 
of  a  similar  nature  to  these  might  be  produced;  but,  as  I  must  be  brief,  the 
reader  is  referred  for  further  satisfaction  to  the  works  of  Lightfoot,  where  he 
will  learn,  by  extracts  from  Jewish  writings,  the  source,  and  meaning  of  many 
more  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  most  disagreeable  part  of  the  subject,  viz.  :  The 
consideration  of  the  other  maxims  mentioned,  which,  it  must  be  allowed,  do 
belong  to  Jesus,  or  at  least  to  the  New  Testament,  since  they  are  the  peculiar 
moral  principles  of  Cliristianity,  and  the  honour  of  them  can  be  challenged  by, 
I  believe,  no  other  religion. 

These  precepts  are  so  QxiYcmGXj  hyperbolical,  that  they  are  7io<,  and  cannot 
be  ptrfectly  observed  by  any  Christian,  who  does  not  detach  himself  com- 
pletely from  the  business  of  society ;  and  these  maxims,  (which,  as  I  said 
befoi'e,  are  the  only  parts  of  the  morality  of  the  New  Testament,  which  are 
not  borrowed,)  never  have  been  obeyed  by  any  but  the  primitive  Christians  ; 
and  by  the  Monks,  and  Anchorets ;  for  even  the  Quakers  and  Shakers, 
eminent  as  they  are  in  Christian  morality,' have  never  been  able  to  come 
quite  up  to  the  self  denial  required  by  the  New  Testament. 

Indeed,  the  moral  maxims  peculiar  to  Christianity  are  impracticable, 
except  by  one  who  confines  his  wealth  to  the  possession  of  a  suit  of  clothes, 
and  wooden  platter,  and  who  ]iv6s  in  a  cave,  or  a  monastery.  They  bear  the 
stamp  of  enthusiasm  upon  their  very  front,  and  we  have  always  seen,  and 
ever  shall  see,  that  they  are  not  fit  for  man  :  that  they  lift  him  out  of  the 
sphere  in  which  God  designed  him  to  move ;  that  they  are  useless  to  society, 
and  frequently  produce  the  most  dangerous  consequences  to  it.  In  a  word, 
in  these  maxims  we  find  commands,  the  fulfillment  of  which,  is  impossible  by 
any  man  who  is  a  husband,  ^father,  or  a  citizen.   <. 

*  Bee  Addenda,  No.  2. 


89 

It  is  an  outrage  to  human  nature,  and  to  common  eense,  to  order  a 
Tirtuous  man,  in  order  to  reach  perfection,  to  strip  himself  of  his  property; 
to  offer  the  other  cheek  to  receive  a  new  outrage ;  not  to  resist  the  most 
unjust  violence,  injury,  and  insult;  not  to  defend  himself,  or  his  property, 
when  "  sued  at  the  law ;"  to  quit  his  house  and  goods,  and  to  hate  his 
parents,  and  brethren,  and  wife,  and  children,  for  the  sake  of  Jesus;  to  refuse 
and  reject  innocent  pleasures  ;  to  deny  himself  lawful  enjoyments,  appointed 
by  the  Creator  to  make  the  existence  of  man  a  blessing  to  himself  and  others. 
Who  does  not  see  in  these  commands  the  language  of  enthusiasm 
of  hyperbole  ?  These  maxims  !  are  they  not  directly  fitted  to  dis- 
courage, and  debase  a  man  ?  to  degrade  him  in  his  own  eyes,  and  those 
of  others  ?  to  plunge  him  into  despair  ?  And  would  not  the  literal  fulfillment 
of  them  prove  destructive  to  society?  What  shall  we  say  of  that -morality 
■which  orders  the  heart  to  detach  itself  from  objects,  which  God,  and  reason, 
and  nature  order  it  to  love?  To  refuse  to  enjoy  innocent  and  lawful 
happiness,  —what  is  it  but  to  despise  the  benefits  of  God  ?  What  real  good 
can  result  for  society  from  these  melancholy  virtues,  which  Christianity 
regards  as  perfections  ?  Will  a  man  become  more  useful  to  society  when 
his  mind  is  perpetually  inquieted  by  imaginary  terrors,  by  mournful  thoughts, 
trhich  prevent  him  from  fulfilling  the  duties  he  owes  to  his  family,  his 
country  and  those  with  whom  he  is  connected  ? 

It  may  be  safely  said,  that  enthusiasm  is  the  base  of  the  morality  of 
Christianity ;  I  say,  the  morality  of  Christianity,  meaning  thereby,  not  the 
morality  of  those  called  Christians,  but  the  morality  expressed,  and  required 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  virtues  it  recommends,  are  the  virtues  carica- 
tured, and  rendered  extravagant ;  virtues  which  divide  a  man  from  his 
neighbour,  and  plunge  him  in  melancholy,  and  render  him  useless,  and 
unhappy.  In  this  world  we  want  human  virtues,  not  those  which  make  a 
man  a  misanthrope.  Society  desires,  and  wants  virtues  that  help  to  main- 
tain it,  which  gives  it  energy  and  activity.  It  wants  virtues  which  render 
families  industrious,  and  united ;  and  which  incite,  and  enable  every  one  to 
obtain  lawful  pleasures,  and  to  augment-  the  general  felicity.  But  the 
peculiar  virtues  of  the  New  Testament,  either  debase  the  mind  by  over- 
whelming fears,  or  intoxicate  it  with  visionary  hopes,  both  which,  are  equally 
fitted  to  turn  away  men  from  their  proper  duties. 

In  truth,  what  advantages  can  society  derive  from  those  virtues  styled 
by  Christians,  Evangelical?  which  they  prefer  to  the  social  virtues,  the  real 
and  the  useful,  and  without  which,  they  assert,  a  man  cannot  please  God, 
Let  us  examine  these  vaunted  perfections,  and  let  us  see  of  what  utility  they 
can  be  to  society,  and  whether  they  really  merit  the  preference  which  is 
given  them  by  their  advocates. 

The  first  of  these  Christian  virtues,  which  serves  as  a  base  for  all  tho 
others,  is  faith.  It  consists  in  believing  the  truth  of  dogmas,  of  absurd 
fables,  which  Christianity  (according  to  the  catechisms)  orders  its  disciples 
to  believe — dogmas,  as  absurd  and  impossible  as  a  square  circle,  or  a  round 
triangle  ! — from  which  we  see,  that  this  virtue  exacts  an  entire  renunciation 
of  common  sense :  an  assent  to  incredible  facts,  and  a  blind  credulity  in 
absurd  dogmas,  which,  yet,  every  Christian  is  required  to  believe,  under  pain 
of  damnation. 

This  virtue,  too,  though  necessary  to  all  men,  is,  nevertheless,  the  gift  o£ 
heaven !  tho  eftect  of  special  grace.  It  forbids  doubt  and  examination ;  it 
forbids  a  man  the  right  to  exercise  his  reason  ;  it  deprives  him  of  the  liberty 
of  thinking,  and  degrades  him  into  a  bearded  baby. 

This  faith  vanishes  when  a  man  reasons.:  this  virtue  cannot  sustain  a 
tranquil  scrutiny.     And  this  is  the  reason  why  all  thorough  going  ChristianB 
L 


90 

are  naturally,  and,  consequently,  tlio  enemies  of  ecicnco.  This  miraculous 
faith,  which  ••  believeth  all  things,"  is  not  given  to  persons  enlightened  by 
science  and  reflection,  and  accustomed  to  think.  It  is  not  given  but  to  those 
i»ho  are  afraid  to  think,  lest  they  should  otfend  God. 

The  next  Christian  virtue  which  flows  from  the  first,  is  hope,  founded 
upon  the  promises  which  the  New  Testament  makes  to  those  who  render 
themselves  miserable  in  this  life.  It  nourishes  their  enthusiasm,  it  makes 
them  "  forget  the  things  that  are  on  earth,  and  reach  forward  unto  the 
things"  which  are  in  another  world.  It  renders  them  useless  here  below, 
and  makos  them  firmly  believe  that  God  will  recompense  in  heaven,  the 
pains  they  have  taken  to  make  themselves  miserable  on  earth.  How  can  a 
roan,  occupied  with  such  expectations  of  heavenly  happiness,  concern  himself 
at  all  with,  or  for  the  actual  and  present  happiness  of  those  around  him, 
while  he  is  indiferent  as  to  his  ownf  And  how  can  lie  help  this,  when  he 
believes  that  "friendship  with  the  world  is  enmity  with  Godf" 

The  third  virtue  is  charity.  We  have  elsewhere  said,  that  if  universal 
love  or  charity  means  only  general  benevolence,  and  a  desire  to  makes  others 
happy,  and  to  do  them  good,  all  this  is  commanded  by  reason  and  the 
ancient  revelation;  but  if  by  this  precept  it  is  commanded  to  love  those  who 
hate,  oppress  or  insult  us,  we  do  not  at  all  scruple  to  assert,  that  the  thing  is 
impossible,  and  unnatural.  For,  though  we  can  abstain  from  hxirting  our 
enemy ;  or  even  can  do  him  good,  we  cannot  really  love  him.  Love  is  a 
movement  of  the  heart,  which  is  governed  and  directed  by  the  laws  of  our 
nature,  to  those  whom  we  think  worthy  of  it,  and  to  those  only. 

Charity,  considered  as  general  benevolence  of  disposition,  is  virtuous 
and  necessary.  It  is  nothing  more  than  a  feeling  which  interests  us  in 
favour  of  our  fellow  beings.  But  how  is  this  feeling  consistent  with  the 
peculiar  doctrines  of  the  gospel  ?  According  to  its  maxims,  it  is  a  crime  to 
offer  God  a  heart,  whose  affections  are  shared  by  terrestrial  objects.  And 
besides,  does  not  earpcrience  show,  that  devotees  obliged  by  principle  to  hate 
themselves,  are  little  disposed  to  give  better  treatment  to  others? 

Wo  should  not  be  surprised  that  maxims,  originating  with  enthusiasm, 
should  aim  at,  and  have  the  efi'ect  of,  driving  man  out  of  himself.  In  the 
delirium  of  its  enthusiasm,  this  religion  forbids  a  man  to  love  himself.  It 
commands  him  to  hate  all  pleasures  but  those  of  religion,  and  to  cherish  a 
long  face.  It  attributes  to  him  as  meritorious,  all  the  voluntary  evils  he 
inflicts  upon  himself.  From  thence  originate  those  austerites,  those  pen- 
ances, destructive  to  health ;  those  cruel  privations  by  which  the  inhabitants 
of  the  monastic  cell  kill  themselves  by  inches,  in  order  to  merit  the  joys  of 
heaven.  Now,  how  can  good  sense  admit  that  God  delights  in  seeing  his 
creatures  torment  themselves? 

It  may  be  said  to  all  this,  perhaps,  that  this  is  mere  declamation,  for 
Christians  now  a  days  do  not  torment  themselves,  but  live  as  comfortable  as 
others.  To  this  I  answer  that  Christianity  is  to  bo  judged  not  by  what 
Christians  do,  but  by  what  it  commands  them  to  do.  Now,  I  presume  it  will 
not  be  denied  that  the  New  Testament  commands  its  professors  to  renounce 
the  world,  to  be  dead  to  the  world,  to  "crucify  the  flesh  with  its  passions  and 
desires."  Certainly  these  directions  were  literally  complied  with  by  the 
primitive  Christians;  and,  in  doing  so,  they  acted  consistently.  In  those 
times,  the  deserts,  the  mountains,  the  forests  were  peopled  with  perfect 
Christians  ;  who  withdrew  from  the  world,  deprived  their  families  of  support, 
and  their  country  of  citizens,  in  order  to  lead  unmolested  "  the  divine  life." 
It  was  the  New  Testament  morality  that  spawned  those  legions  of  mo^ks 
and  cenobites,  who  thought  to  secure  the  favour  of  heaven,  by  burying  their 
talents  in  the  deserts,  and'  devoting  themselves  to  inaction  and  ceUbacy, 


91 

• 
And   at  this  very  day   we  sec  thepe  very  same  things  in  those   Christian 
countries,  which  are  truly  faithful  to  the  principles  of  their  religion. 

In  fine,  Christianity  seems  from  the  first,  tu  have  taken  pains  to  set  itself 
\n  point  blanc  opposition  to  nature,  and  reason.  If  it  admits  and  includes 
some  virtues  ordered  and  appointed  by  Cod,  good  sense,  and  universal 
experience ;  it  drives  them  beyond  their  bounds  into  extravagance.  It 
preserves  no  just  medium,  which  is  the  point  of  perfection.  Vi)luptuou8- 
ness,  adultery  and  debauchery  are  forbidden  by  the  Uvws  of  God  and  rt^ason. 
But  Christianity  not  content  with  commanding,  and  encouraging  marringe, 
as  did  the  Old  Testament,  must  forsooth  go  beyond  it,  and  therefore 
encourages  celibacy,  as  the  state  of  perfection  God  says,  in  Genesis,  "  it  is 
not  good  that  man  should  be  alone.  I  will  make  a  companion  for  him." 
And  he  blessed  all  his  creatures,  saying,  "  increase  and  multiply."  But  the 
gospel  annuls  this  law,  and  represents  a  single  life  to  be  most  pleasing,  to  the 
Tery  being,  whose  very  first  command  was,  "  increase  and  multiply" !  It 
advises  a  man  to  die  without  posterity,  to  refuse  citizens  to  the  state,  and  to 
himself,  a  support  for  his  old  age. 

It  is  to  no  purpose  to  deny  that  Christianity  recommends  all  this ;  I  say, 
it  substantially  does  !  and  I  boldly  appeal, — not  to  a  few  Protestant  Divines, 
—but  to  the  New  Testament ;  to  the  Homilies  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church;  to 
the  History,  and  Practice  of  the  Prim.itive  Christians;  to  the  innumerable 
Monasteries  of  Europe,  and  Asia  ;  to  the  immense  multitudes  who  have  lived, 
and  died  hermits;  and,  finally,  (because  I  know  very  well,  the  Protestant 
<iivines  attribute  these  follies  to  the  influence  of  Platonism,  Pythagoranism^ 
and  several  other  isms  upon  pure  Christianity)  I  appeal  to  living  evidence 
now  in  the  world,  to  the  only  thorough  going  Christians  in  it,  viz.,  to  the 
Society  of  the  Shakers,  who  I  maintain,  and  can  prove,  to  be  true,  genuine 
imitators  of  the  Primitive  Christians,  and  a  perfect  exemplification  of  their 
manners,  and  modes  of  thinking.  I  adduce  them  the  more  confidently, 
hecause,  being  simple,  and  unlearned,  their  character  has  been  formed  by 
the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament,  and  perfectly  represents  the  effects  of  its 
principles yu^i/  carried  out,  and  acted  upon.  They  never  heard  of  Platonism, 
or  of  Pythagoras  in  their  lives,  and,  consequently,  the  polemic  tricks,  and 
evasions,  which  have  been,  as  hinted  just  now,  resorted  to  by  Protestant 
divines,  to  shift  from  the  shoulders  of  Christianity  to  those  of  Plato  or 
Pythagoras,  the  obnoxious  principles  we  have  been  considering,  are  of  no 
use  in  this  case,  as,  whatever  the  characters  of  these  Shakers  may  be,  they 
were  formed  by  the  New  Testament,  and  by  nothing  else;  and  I  believe, 
that  every  scholar  in  ecclesiastical  history,  who  reads  Brown's  history  of  the 
Shakers,  will  be  immediately  and  powerfully  struck  with  the  resemblance 
eubsisting  between  them,  and  the  Christians  of  the  two  first  centuries. 

As  examples  of  the  effects  of  those  precepts  of  Christian  morality,  which 
command  us  to  hate  father,  and  mother,  and  sister,  and  brother,  for  the 
sake  of  Jesus,  take  the  following  extracts  from  the  histoiy  referred  to. 

"According  to  their  faith,  natural  affection  must  be  eradicated;  and 
they  say  they  must  love  all  equally  alike,  as  brothers,  and  sisters  in  the 
gospel.  It  would  exceed  the  limits  of  this  work  to  give  a  particular  account 
of  the  various  schemes  that  have  been  contrived,  to  destroy  all  natural 
affection  and  social  attachment  between  man  and  wife,  parent  and  child, 
hrothers  and  sisters  ;  especially  towards  such  as  have  left  the  society.  Two 
instances  that  occurred  about  this  time,  as  specimens  of  others,  may  suffice. 
A  mother,  who  had  renounced  the  faith,  (i  e.  left  the  society,)  come  to 
Niskeuna  to  see  her  daughter.  Eldross  Hannah  Matterson  told  the  daughter 
to  go  into  the  room  to  her  carnal  mother,  and  say,  '  What  do  you  come  hero 
for  ?     I  don't  want  you  to  come  and  see  me  with  your  carnal  affections/' 


92 

*  Tho  mother  being  grieved,  replied,  '  I  did  not  expect  that  a  daughter  of 
mine  would  over  address  mo  in  that  manner.' 

« Tho  daughter,  in  obedience  to  what  she  was  taught,  replied  again, 
*  You  have  come  here  with  your  carnal  fleshly  desires,  and  I  do'nt  vjant  to  aee 
you,'  and  loft  her  mother." 

"  Sonio  time  after,  one  Duncan  Shaploy,  who  had  belonged  to  tbo 
Bociety,  called  to  see  Abigail,  his -sister,  at  Niskeuna,  whom  ho  had  not  soon 
for  sTx  or  seven  years;  but  he  was  not  admitted:  ho  waited  some  time, 
being  loath  to  go  away  without  seeing  her.  At  last  she  was  ordered  to  go 
to  the  window  and  address  him  in  the  language  of  abuse  and  scurrility.  The 
words  she  made  uso  of,  it  would  be  indecent  to  mention.  For  this  sho  was 
applauded,  and  that  in  the  author's  hearing,  when  he  belonged  to  the 
society." 

This  man  gives  a  very  curious  account  how  the  elders  treated  "  thoir 
babes,"  in  their  spiritual  nursery ;  but  I  shall  notice  only  one  or  two 
examples,  which  illustrate  what  I  have  advanced  concerning  the  natural 
hostility  of  the  spirit  of  tho  New  Testament  towards  science.  "  I  know  of 
several,  who,  soon  after  they  joined  the  Church,  have  been  counselled  by  the 
Elders  to  dispose  of  their  books  ;  and  have  accordingly  done  it.  Elder  Ebea- 
ezer  being  at  my  house  one  day,  on  seeing  a  number  of  books,  he  said — 
•Ah!  Thomas  must  put  away  his  books  if  ho  intends  to  become  a  good 
believer.' 

As  an  instance  of  its  eflfects  upon  the  human  understanding,  take  the 
following: — "A  short  time  after,  being  at  a  believer's  house,  at  eleven 
o'clock  at  night,  they  all  having  retired  to  rest,  and  I  laying  awake  in  a  dry 
well  finished  room,  in  which  was  a  stove  and  fire,  there  fell  a  large  drop  of 
water  on  my  temples  ;  on  examination,  I  could  not  discover  where  the  water 
came  from.     I  told  the  believers  of  it  in  the  morning." 

"  One  said,  *  Ah  !  it  is  a  warning  to  you  respecting  your  unbelief.' 

"  I  then  assigned  some  inconclusive  reason,  how  the  drop  might  h»T© 
become  formed  in  tho  room,  and  its  falling.". 

"  One  replied,  '  Ah !  that  is  the  way  you  render  a  natural  reason  for 
the  cause  of  every  thing,  and  so  reason  away  your  faith  and  yourself  out  of 
the  gospel.' " 

As  another  proof,  that  genuine  Christianity  discourages  marriago,  and 
considers  celibacy  as  the  only  state  of  perfection,  the  Shakers  allow  of  w> 
marriages  at  all. 

Thus  you  see  that,  among  these  people,  to  become  a  "  good  believer," 
you  must  insult  your  parents,  revile  your  brother,  depise  learning,  and  never 
render  a  '' natural  reason'  for  any  thing,  lest  you  should  "reason  away  your 
faith,  and  yourself  out  of  the  gospel." 

CHAPTER    XVIII. 


OH    THB    PECDLIAE    MORALITT    OF     THE     NEW    TESTAMEMT,    AB     IT     AFTECT8    NATI0II9    !■• 

POLITICAL    SOCIETIES. 

After  having  seen  tho  uselessness,  and  even  the  danger,  to  individuals, 
of  the  perfections,  the  virtues,  and  the  duties,  which  Christianity  peculiarly 
commands;  let  us  now  see  whether  it  has  a  more  happy  influence  upon 
politics;  or  whether  it  produces  real  happiness  among  the  nations  with  whom 
this  religion  is  established,  and  the  spirit  of  it  faithfully  observed.  Let  us  do 
80,  and  we  shall  find,  that  wherever  Christianity  is  established  and  obeyed.  It 


03 

©staVllshcs  a  sot  of  laws  directly  opposed  to  those  of  a  well  ordered  national 
Bocicty  ;  nnd  it  soon  makes  this  disagreement  and  incompatibility  distinctly 
to  be  felt. 

rolitics  are  intended  to  maintain  union  and  concord  among  the  citizens. 
Christianity,  though  it  preaches  universal  love,  and  commuiuls  its  followers 
to  live  in  peace  ;  yet,  by  a  strange  inconsistency,  consequentially  annihilates 
tho  effect  of  these  excellent  precepts,  by  the  ivevitable  divisions  it  causes 
among  its  followers,  who  necessariltj  understand  differently  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  because  the  latter  is  not  only  irreconcilably  contradictory  to  the 
former,  but  it  is  even  inconsistent  with  itself.  From  the  vrry  commencement 
of  Christianity,  we  perceive  very  violent  disputes  among  its  founders  and 
teachers ;  and  through  every  succeeding  century,  we  find,  in  the  history  of 
the  Church,  nothing  but  schism  and  heresy.  These  are  followed  by  perse- 
cutions and  quarrels,  exceedingly  well  adapted  to  destroy  this  vaunted  spirit 
of  concord,  said  hy  its  defenders  to  be  peculiar  to  Christianity ;  and  the 
existence  of  which  is,  in  fact,  impossible  in  a  religion  which  is  one  entire  chaos 
of  obscure  doctrines  and  impracticable  precepts.  In  every  religious  disputo, 
both  parties  thought  that  God  was  on  their  side,  and,  consequently,  they 
•were  obstinate  and  irreconcilable.  And  how  should  it  have  been  otherwise, 
since  they  confounded  the  cause  of  God  with  the  miserable  interests  of  their 
own  vanity  ?  Thus,  being  little  disposed  to  give  way  on  one  part  or  the 
other,  they  cut  one  another's  throats;  they  tormented,  they  burnt  each 
Other ;  they  tore  one  another  to  pieces ;  and  having  exterminated  or  put  down 
the  obnoxious  sects,  they  sung  Te  Deum. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  pursue,  in  this  place,  tho  horrid  detail  of 
ecclesiastical  history,  as  connected  with  that  of  the  Roman  empire.  Mr. 
Gibbon  has  exhibited  in  such  colours  this  dreadful  record  of  follies,  and  of 
crimes,  that  it  is  diCBcult  to  see  how  the  maxim  of  judging  the  tree  by  its 
fruit,  will  not  fatally  afFect  the  cause  of  the  Christian  religion.  I  refer  to 
Mr.  Gibbon's  history  as  a  cool  and  impartial  narrative ;  for  I  am  well  satisfied 
that,  so  far  from  having  reason  to  complain  of  him,  the  advocates  of 
Christianity  have  very  great  reason,  indeed,  to  thank  him  for  hi?,  forbearance, 
since,  with  his  eloquence,  he  might  have  drawn  a  picture  that  would  have 
made  humanity  shudder.  For,  throughout  tho  whole  history,  if  a  man  had 
wished  to  know  what  was  then  the  orttiodox  faith,  the  best  method  of  ascer- 
taining it,  would  have  been,  undoubtedly,  to  ask,  "  What  is  the  catechism  of 
ths  public  executioner." 

The  Christian  religion  was,  it  is  evident  from  his  history,  the  principal, 
though  by  no  means  the  only  cause  of  tho  decline  and  fall  of  the  Roman 
empire.  Because  it  degraded  the  spirit  of  the  people,  and  because  it  pro- 
duced monks  and  hermits  in  abundance,  but  yielded  no  soldiers.  The 
heathen  adversaries  of  Christianity  were  in  tho  right  when  they  said,  that 
"  if  it  prevailed,  Rome  was  no  more  1"  The  Christians  would  not  serve  in 
the  armies  of  tho  emperor,  if  they  could  possibly  avoid  it.  They  justly 
considered  the  profession  of  a  soldier,  and  that  of  a  Christian,  as  incompatible. 
Celsus  accuses  them  of  abandoning  the  empire,  under  whose  laws  they  lived, 
to  its  enemies.  And  what  is  the  answer  of  Origen  to  this  accusation  ?  Look 
at  his  pitiful  reply  1  Ho  endeavours  to  palliate  this  undutiiul  refusal  by 
representing  that — ••  the  Christians  had  their  peculiar  camps,  in  which  they 
incessantly  combatted  for  the  safety  of  the  emperor  and  emiiire,  by  lifting  up 
their  right  hands — in  prayer  !  •"  (See  Origen  contra  Celsum,  Lib.  8, 
p.  427.)  This  is  a  sneaking  piece  of  business  truly!  But  Origen  could 
have  given  another  answer,  if  he  had  dared  to  avow  it,  which  is,  that 
his  co-religionists,  in  his  time,  had  not  ceased  to  expect  their  master 
momentarily  to  appear;  and,  of  course,  it  little  mattered  what  became 


04 

of  tho  cmporor,  or  the  empire.  This  notion  was  the  principal  engine  for 
inakin<r  proselytes  ;  and  it  was  by  this  expectation  that  many  wore  frightened 
into  baptism. 

That  Christianity  was  considered  incompatible  with  the  military  profes- 
sion, is  evident  from  many  passages  of  tho  fathers.  And  one  of  them,  I 
believe,  Tertullian,  ventures  to  insinuate  to  tho  Christians  in  the  legions, 
the  expediency  of  deserting,  to  rid  themselves  of  "their  carnal  employment." 
Nay,  to  such  a  height  did  this  spirit  prevail,  that  it  never  stopped  till  it 
taught  tho  Roman  youth  in  Italy  tho  expedient  of  cutting  off  the  thumbs  of 
their  right  hands  in  order  to  avoid  the  conscription,  and  that  they  might  be 
allowed  to  count  their  beads  at  home  in  quiet. 

If  wo  examine,  in  detail,  the  precepts  of  this  religion,  as  they  a^ect 
nations,  we  shall  see,  that  it  interdicts  every  thing  which  can  make  a  nation 
flourishing.  We  have  seen  already  the  notion  of  imperfection  which  Chris- 
tianity attaches  to  marriage,  and  the  esteem  and  preference  it  holds  out  to 
celibacy.  These  ideas  certainly  do  not  favour  population,  which  is,  without 
contradiction,  the  first  source  of  power  to  every  state. 

Commerce  is  not  less  obnoxious  to  the  principles  of  a  religion  whose 
founder  is  represented  as  denouncing  an  anathema  against  the  rich,  and  as 
excluding  them  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  All  industry  is  equally  inter- 
dicted to  perfect  Christians,  who  are  to  spend  their  lives  "  as  strangers,  and 
pilgrims  upon  earth,"  and  who  are  "  not  to  take  care  of  the  morrow." 

Chrysostom  says,  that  "  a  mercliant  cannot  please  God,  and  that  such  a 
one  ought  to  be  chased  out  of  the  church." 

No  Christian,  also,  without  being  inconsistent,  can  serve  in  tho  army. 
For  a  man,  who  is  never  sure  of  being  in  a  state  of  grnce,  is  tho  most  extra- 
vagant of  men,  if,  by  the  hazard  of  battle,  he  exposes  himself  to  eternal 
perdition.  And  a  Christian  who  ought  to  love  his  enemies,  is  he  not  guilty  of 
the  greatest  of  crimes,  when  he  inflicts  death  upon  a  hostile  soldier,  of  whose 
disposition  he  knows  nothing :  and  whom  he  may,  at  a  single  stroke,  precipi- 
tate into  hell?  A  Christian  soldier  is  a  monster!  a  non-descript!  and 
Lactantius  affirms,  that  "  a  Christian  cannot  be  either  a  soldier,  or  an  accuser 
in  a  criminal  cause."  And,  at  this  day,  the  Quakers  and  Mennonites  refuse 
to  carry  arms,  and,  in  so  doing,  they  are  consistent  Christians. 

Christianity  declares  war  against  the  sciences;  they  are  regarded  as  an 
obstacle  to  salvation.  "  Science  puffeth  up,"  says  Paul.  And  the  fathers  of 
the  church,  St.  Gregory,  St.  Ambrose,  and  St.  Augustine  denounce  vehemently 
astronomy,  and  geometry.  And  Jerom  declares,  that  he  was  whipped  by  an 
angel  only  for  reading  that  Pagan  Cicero. 

It  has  been  often  remaiked,  that  the  most  enlightened  men  are  com- 
monly bad  Christians.  For  independent  of  its  effects  on  faith,  which  science 
is  exceedingly  apt  to  subvert,  it  diverts  the  Christian  from  the  work  of  his 
salvation,  which  is  the  only  thing  needful.  In  a  word,  the  peculiar  principles 
of  Christianity  literally  obeyed,  would  entirely  subvert  from  its  foundations 
every  political  society  now  existing.  If  this  assertion  is  doubted,  let  the 
doubter  read  the  works  of  tho  early  Fathers,  and  he  will  see  that  their 
morality  is  totally  incompatible  with  the  preservation  and  prosperity  of  a 
state.  He  will  see  according  to  Lactantius,  and  others,  that  "  no  Christian 
can  lawfully  be  a  soldier."  That  according  to  Justin,  "no  Christian  can  be 
a  magistrate."  That  according  to  Chrysostom,  "  no  Christian  ought  to  be  a 
merchant"  And  that  according  to  several,  "no  Christian  ought  to  study." 
In  fine,  joining  these  maxims  together  with  those  of  the  New  Testament,  it 
■will  follow,  that  a  Christian,  who  as  ho  is  commanded,  aims  at  perfection, 
is  a  useless  member  of  the  community,  useless  to  his  family,  and  to  all 
around  him.     He  is  an  idle  dreamer,  who  thinks  of  nothing  but  futurity ; 


95 

who  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  interests  of  the  world,  and 
according  to  Tertullian  "has  no  other  business  but  to  get  out  of  it  as  quickly 
as  possible." 

Let  us  hearken  to  Esebius  of  Ceesarea,  and  we  shall  abundantly  discover 
the  truth  of  what  has  been  said. 

"  The  manner  of  life,  (says  he,)  of  the  Christian  church,  surpasses  our 
present  nature,  and  the  common  life  of  men.  It  seeks  neither  marriage,  nor 
ehildren,  nor  riclies.  In  fine,  it  is  entirely  a  stranger  to  human  modes  o/living. 
It  is  entirely  absorbed  in  an  insatiable  love  of  heavenly  things.  Those  who 
follow  this  course  of  life,  have  only  their  bodies  upon  earth,  their  whole  souls 
are  in  heaven,  and  they  already  dwell  among  pure  and  celestial  intelligences, 
and  they  despise  the  manner  af  life  of  other  men,"  Demonstrat,  Evang.  vol. 
ii.  p.  29. 

Indeed  a  man  firmly  persuaded  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  cannot  attach 
himself  to  any  thing  here  below.  Every  thing  here  is  "an  occasion  of 
stumbling,  a  rock  of  offence."  Every  thing  here,  diverts  him  from  thinking 
of  his  salvation.  If  Christians  in  general,  happily,  for  society,  were  not 
inconsistent,  and  did  not  neglect  the  peculiar  precepts  of  iheir  religion,  no 
large  society  of  them  could  exist ;  and  the  nations  enlightened  by  the  gospel 
would  turn  hermits,  and  nuns.  All  business,  but  fasting  and  prayer,  would 
be  at  an  end.  There  would  be  nothing  but  groaning  in  "  this  vale  of  tears  ;" 
and  they  would  make  themselves,  and  others,  as  miserable  as  possible,  from 
the  best  of  motives,  viz :  the  desire  to  fulfill  what  they  mistakenly  conceived 
to  be  the  will  of  God. 

Is  this  a  picture  taken  from  the  life,  or  is  it  a  fanciful  representation  of 
something  different  from  the  peculiar  morality  of  the  New  Testament  ?  This 
serious  question  demands  a  serious  answer.  If  it  be  such  as  it  is  represented 
above,  and  such  it  really  appears  to  me,  and  such  I  have  unfortunately 
experienced  its  operation  to  bo  on  my  own  mind — I  would  respectfully  ask — 
can  such  a  religion,  whose  peculiar  principles  tend  to  render  men  hateful, 
and  hating  one  another :  which  has  often  rendered  sovereigns,  persecutors, 
and  subjects,  either  rebels,  or  slaves :  a  religion,  whose  peculiar  moral 
principles  and  maxims,  teach  the  mind  to  grovel,  and  humble,  and  break 
down  the  energies  of  man;  and  which  divert  him  from  thinking  of  his  true 
interests,  and  the  true  happiness  of  himself  and  his  fellow  men.  Can  such 
a  religion,  I  would  respectfully  ask,  be  from  God,  since  where  fully  obeyed, 
it  would  prove  utterly  destructive  to  society  ? 

CHAPTER  XIX. 


A  0«l»fiII>EKATION  OF  SOME  SUPPOSED  ADVANTAGES  ATTRIBUTED  TO  THE  NEW,  OVER 
THE  OLD,  testament;  AND  WHETHEB  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  A  RESURRECTION,  AND 
A  LIFE  TO  COME,  IS  NOT  TAUGHT  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  IN  CONTRADICTION 
SO  THE  ASSERTION,  THAT  "  LIFE  AND  IMMORTALITY  WERE  BBOUUUT  TO  LIGHT 
BY    THE    GOSPEL." 

From  the  preceding  chapters,  you  may  judge,  reader,  of  the  justice  and 
truth  of  the  opinion,  that  "the  yoke  of  Christian  morality  is  easy,  audits 
burthen  light;"  and  also  of  the  veracity  and  fairness  of  that  constant 
assertion  of  divines,  "that  Jesus  came  to  remove  the  heavy  yoke  of  the 
Mosaic  Law,  and  to  substitute  in  its  room  one  of  easier  observance." — 
Whether  this,  their  assertion,  be  not  rash,  and  ill  founded,  I  will  cheerfully 
leave  to  be  decided  by  any  cool  and  thinking  man,  who  knows  human  nature, 
and  is  acquainted  with  the  human  heart.     I  say,  I  would  cheerfully  leave  it 


96 

to  BDch  a  man,  whether  the  Mosaic  Law,  ^ith  all  its  numorouB  rites,  and 
ceremonial  observances,  nay,  with  all  "  the  (ridiculous)  traditions  of  the 
Elders,"  superadded,  would  not  bo  much  more  bearable  to  human  nature, 
and  much  easier  to  bo  observed  and  obeyed,  than  such  prcrcpts  as  these, 
"  Sell  all  thou  hast,  and  give  it  to  the  poor."  "  If  a  man  ask  thy  cloak,  give 
him  thy  coat  also."  "Resist  not  the  injurious  person,  but  if  a  man  smite 
thee  on  one  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also."  "  Extirpate  and  destroy  all 
carnal  affection,  and  love  nothing,  but  religion."  «  Take  no  thought  for 
to-morrow;" — I  am  confident  that  the  decision  would  be  given  in  my  favour; 
and  have  no  doubt,  that  with  thinking  men,  the  contrary  opinion  would  be 
instantly  rejected  with  the  contempt  it  merits. 

Whether  the  Mosaic  Code  be  tho  best  possible,  or  really  divine,  is  of 
no  consequence  in  this  inquiry,  and  is  with  me  another  question  from  that  of 
its  inferiority  to  that  of  the  New  Testament.  I  do  Dy  no  means  assert  the 
former ;  but  have  no  hesitation  to  give  my  opinion,  after  a  pretty  thorough 
examination  of  the  subject,  that  the  reflections  of  Paul,  and  those  usually 
thrown  out  against  the  Mosaic  Code  by  Theologians,  when  comparing  it  with 
that  of  the  New  Testament,  in  order  to  deprecate  the  former,  appear  to  me 
extremely  p'artial  and  unjust ;  and  so  far  from  true,  that  I  think,  that  the 
ancient  law  has  the  advantage  over  the  precepts  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
being,  at  least,  practicable  and  consistent.* 

*  Another  unfounded  reproach  which  Theologians,  in  order  to  magnifj 
the  importance  of  the  New  Testament,  cast  upon  the  Old,  is  this :  'i'hey  say, 
that  the  Old  Testament  represents  God  only  as  the  tutelary  Deity  of  the 
Israelites,  and  as  not  so  much  concerned  for  the  rest  of  mankind.  To  show 
that  thi.s  is  a  very  mistaken  notion,  and  to  manifest  that  the  Eternal  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  represented  therein,  not  as  the  God  of  the  Jews  only,  but 
also  of  the  Gentiles,  I  refer  to  these  words  : — "  The  Lord  thy  God  is  God  of 
gods,  and  Lord  of  lords,  a  great  God,  a  mighty  and  a  terrible  ;  who  regardeth 
not  persons,  nor  taketh  rewanl.  He  doth  execute  the  judgment  of  tho 
fatherless,  and  widow,  and  lovetk  the stranger,\n  giving  him  food  and  raiment. 
Love  ye,  therefore,  the  stranger.  Thou  shalt  neither  vex  a  stranger,  nor 
oppress  him,  for  ye  know  the  heart  of  a  stranger,  seeing  ye  were  strangers  in 
the  laud  of  Egypt.  Hear  the  causes  between  your  brethren,  and  judge 
righteously  between  a  man  and  his  brother,  and  the  stranger  that  is  with 
him.  One  law  shall  be  to  him  that  is  home  born,  and  to  the  stranger  that 
Bojourneth  among  you.  The  stranger  that  dwellelh  with  you  shall  be  as 
one  born  among  you,  and  thou  skalt  love  him  as  thyself.  I  am  the  Lord  your 
God." 

Indeed,  so  little  truth  is  there  in  tho  notion,  that  the  law  and  religion  of 
the  Old  Testament  were  established  with  the  intention  of  confining  them  to 
one  people,  exclusive  of  all  others,  that  the  Old  Testament  certainly  represents 
them  in  such  manner,  as  shows,  that  they  were  intended  to  be  as  unconfined 
as  the  Christian,  or  Mahometan ;  its  religion,  in  fact,  admitted  everj 
one  who  would  receive  it.  And  what  is  more,  it  can  be  proved  that  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation  claims,  as  appears  from  itself,  to  have  been  given 
for  the  common  advantage  of  all  mankind.  And  it  is  asserted  in  it,  (whether 
truly  or  not,  is  not  tho  question ;  it  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose,  that 
it  asserts   it),   that    tho    religion    contained  in    it,   will    one    day    be   tho 

*  The  author  liad  prcparef),  in  order  to  subjoin  in  this  place,  an  <  xamination  of 
the  Mosaic  Code,  and  a  develop  anient  of  its  principles,  which  he  thinks  would  have 
satisfied  the  reader  of  the  truth  of  what  he  has  said  in  th«!  last  paragraph.  But  as  it 
would  have  too  much  increased  the  hulk  of  the  volume,  it  has  been  omitted.  It  isaa 
institution  however  curious  enough  to  be  the  subject  of  an  interesting  diseuesion, 
which  he  should  be  happy  to  see  from  the  hands  of  oue  able  to  do  it  justice. — E. 


«7 

religion  of  all  mankind.  For  it  declares  that  Jerusalem  will  be  the  centre  of 
worship  for  all  nations,  and  the  temple  there,  be  "  the  house  of  prayer  for  all 
nations ;"  that  the  Eternal  will  be  the  only  God  worshipped ;  and  his  laws  the 
only  laws  obeyed.  It  i-epresents  Abraham  and  his  posterity  as  merely  the 
instruments  of  the  Eternal  to  bring  about  these  ends ;  it  is  repeatedly  declared 
therein,  that  the  reason  of  God's  dispensations  towards  them  was,  "  that  all 
the  earth  might  know  that  the  Eternal  is  God,  and  that  there  is  no  other  but 
Him."  According  to  its  history,  when  God  threatened  to  destroy  the 
Israelites  for  their  perverseness  in  the  wilderness,  and  oifei'S  Moses,  interceding 
for  them,  to  raise  up  his  seed  to  fulfil  the  purposes  for  which  he  designed 
the  posterity  of  Abraham ;  he  tells  Moses  that  his  purpose  should  not  be 
frustrated  through  the  perverseness  of  the  chosen  instruments ;  "  but,  (saith 
He),  as  surely  as  I  live,  all  the  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the  glory  of  the  Lord," 
Numbers  xiv.  21.  Many  passages  of  similar  import  are  contained  in  the 
Psalms,  and  the  Prophets.  In  fact,  there  is  no  truth  at  all  in  the  statement 
of  the  Catechisms,  that  the  Old  Testament  was  merely  preparatory,  and 
intended  merely  to  prepare  the  way  for  "  a  better  covenant,"  as  Paul  says  ; 
even  for  another  religion,  (the  Christian)  which  was  to  convert  all  nations  ; 
for,  (if  the  Old  Testament  be  suffered  to  tell  its  own  story,)  we  shall  find, 
that  it  claims,  and  challenges  the  honour  of  beginning,  and  completing,  this 
magnificent  design  solely  to  itself.  I  was  going  to  overwhelm  the  patience  of 
the  reader  with  quotations  from  it,  to  this  purpose ;  but  being  willing  to 
spare  him  and  myself,  I  will  only  produce  one,  which,  as  it  is  direct  and  per- 
emptory to  this  effect,  is  as  good  as  a  hundred,  to  demonstrate  that  the  Old 
Testament  at  least  claims  what  I  have  said.  Zech.  viii.  20,  "  Thus  saith 
the  Eternal  of  Hosts :  It  shall  yet  come  to  pass,  that  there  shall  come  people, 
and  the  inhabitants  of  many  cities ;  and  the  inhabitants  of  one  city  shall  go 
to  another,  saying:  "Let  us  go  speedily  to  pray  before  the  Eternal,  and  to 
seek  the  Eternal  of  Hosts :  I  will  go  also.  Yea,  many  people,  and  strong 
nations  shall  come  to  seek  the  Eternal  of  Hosts  in  Jerusalem,  and  to  pray 
before  the  Eternal.  Thus  saith  the  Eternal  ot  Hosts  :  In  those  days  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  that  ten  men  shall  take  hold  out  of  all  the  languages  of  the 
nations,  even  shall  take  hold  of  the  skirt  of  him  that  is  a  Jew,  saying,  we  will 
go  with  you." 

Bo  it  so,  it  may  be  said; — "  Still,  it  is  to  Christianity  the  world  owes  the 
consoling  doctrine  of  a  life  to  come.  Life  and  iminortality  were  brought  to 
light  by  the  Gospel,"  say  the  Chi'istian  divines ;  and  they  assert,  that  the 
doctrine  of  a  resun-ection  was  not  known  to  Jew  or  Gentile,  till  they  learned 
it  from  Jesus'  followers.  The  Old  Testament,  (say  they,)  taught  the  Jews 
nothing  of  the  glorious  truths  concerning  "  the  resui'rection  of  the 
body,  and  the  life  everlasting,"  their  "  beggarly  elements"  confined 
their  views  to  temporal  happiness,  only."  These  assertions  I  shall  prove 
from  the  Old  Testament  itself,  to  be  contrary  to  fact;  for  the  Jews 
both  knew,  and  were  taught  by  their  Bibles  to  expect  a  resurrection,  and 
believed  it  as  firmly  as  any  Christian  can,  or  ever  did.  For  proof  hereof,  I 
shall,  in  the  first  place,  quote  the  37th  chapter  of  Ezekiel,  and  which  is  as 
follows,  "  The  hand  of  the  Lord  was  upon  me,  and  carried  mo  out  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Lord,  and  set  me  down  in  the  midst  of  the  valley,  which  was 
full  of  bones.  And  caused  me  to  pass  by  them  round  about,  and  behold 
there  were  very  many  in  the  open  valley,  and  behold  they  were  dry. — 
And  he  said  unto  me,  Son  of  man,  can  these  bones  live?  and  I  an- 
swered, O  Lord  God,  thou  knowest.  Again  he  said  unto  me.  Prophecy 
upon  these  bones,  and  say  unto  them,  O  ye  dry  bones,  hear  the  word 
of  the  Lord.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  unto  these  bones,  behold  I  will 
cause  breath  to  enter  into  you,  and  ye  shall  live,  and  I  will  lay  sinews  upon 


98 

you,  and  will  bring  up  flesh  upon  you ;  and  cover  you  with  slcin,  and  put 
breath  into  you;  and  yo  shall  live,  and  know  that  I  am  the  Lord.  So  I 
prophesied  as  J  was  conunanded,  and,  as  I  prophesied,  there  was  a  noise,  and 
behold,  a  shaking,  and  the  bones  came  together,  bone  to  his  bone.  And 
■when  I  beheld,  lo,  the  sinews  and  the  flesh  came  up  upon  them,  and  the  skia 
covered  them  above  ;  but  there  was  no  breath  in  them.  Then  said  he  unto 
me,  Prophcpy  son  of  man,  and  say  unto  the  wind,  thus  saith  the  Lord  God, 
come  from  the  four  winds,  O  breath !  and  breathe  upon  these  slain,  that  they 
may  live.  So  I  prophesied  as  ho  commanded  me,  and  the  breath  came  into 
them,  and  they  lived,  and  stood  up  again  upon  their  feet,  an  exceeding 
great  army." 

A  plainer  resurrection  than  this  is,  I  think  never  was  preached  either  by 
Jesus  or  his  followers.  Again,  Daniel  the  prophet  says,  "  Many  of  theuti 
that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and 
Bome  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,"  Daniel  xii.  2.  Now  Ezckiel  lived 
almost  six  hundred  years  before  Jesus,  and  Daniel  was  cotemporary  with  tho 
former;  and  is  it  not  a  little  surprising,  that  the  Jews  should  learn,  for  the 
jfirst  time,  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  of  tho  followers  of  Jesus  Christ, 
when  they  knew  of  the  resurrection  almost  six  hundred  years  before  he  was 
born  ?  Isaiah  also,  (who  lived  before  either  Ezekiel  or  Daniel),  in  the  26th 
chapter  of  his  prophesies,  (exciting  the  Jews  to  have  confidence  in  God,  and 
not  to  despair  on  account  of  their  captivity,  and  the  troubles  and  afflictions 
which  they  should  suff'er  therein),  foretells  to  them  that  death  would  not 
deprive  them  of  the  reward  of  their  piety  and  virtue ;  for  God  woidd  raise 
them  from  the  dead,  and  make  them  happy.  "  Thy  dead  men  shall  live,  my 
dead  bodies*  (i.  e.,  the  bodies  of  God's  servants)  they  shall  arise.  Awake! 
and  sing !  ye  that  dwell  in  the  dust,  for  thy  dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs." 
The  meaning  of  the  last  clause  is — that,  as  the  grass,  which  in  Oriental 
countries  becomes  brown  and  shrivelled  by  the  heat  of  the  sun  ;  from  the 
eff"ects  of  the  dew  it  changes  and  springs  up,  as  it  were,  in  a  moment,  green  and 
fresh  and  beautiful ;  so,  by  the  instantaneous  influence  of  the  word  of  God, 
the  dry  and  decayed  remains  of  mortality  shall  become  blooming  with 
immortal  freshness  and  beauty.  See  also  Hosea  xiii.  14.  I  might  easily 
multiply  passages  from  the  Old  Testament,  to  prove  that  the  doctrine  of  a 
resurrection  was  familiar  to  the  ancient  Israelites,  but  I  suppose  that  what  I 
have  already  produced,  is  sufficient.  Those,  however,  who  wish  to  see  the 
subject  more  thoroughly  examined,  are  referred  to  "  Greave's  Lectures  on 
the  Pentateuch,"  a  work  lately  published  in  Europe,  highly  honourable  to 
the  author.  See  also  a  Tract  upon  this  subject,  published  by  Dr.  Priestley, 
in  1801. 

I  shall  only  add  one  observation  more  on  this  subject,  viz.,  that  it  is  very 
singular  that  Christian  divines  should  assert,  that  "  life  and  immortality  were 
first  brought  to  light  by  the  Gospel,"  when  the  New  Testament  {^se// represents 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  as  being  perfectly  well  known  to  the  Jews,  and 
describes  Jesus  himself  as  proving  it  to  the  Sadducees  out  of  tlie  Old 
Testament !  !  ! 


*  Mr.  English,  it  will  be  perceived,  differs  in  his  translasion  of  the  Hebrew  word 
*'  nebelati,"  whirh  is,  certainly,  in  the  sinj^ular  number,  and  not  plural.  The  correct 
rendering  is,  doubtless,  "with  my  dead  body  they,"  &c. ;  but  this  weakens  not  at  all 
his  argument,  which  is  essentially  a  Jewish  onel  See  the  Commentators,  Cbizzook 
Emunah,  &.c.  &.c. — D. 


99 

CONCLUSION. 

I  HAVE  now  finished  my  work,  which  I  have  written  in  order  to  excul- 
pate myself,  and  to  do  justice  to  others  ;  and  having  re-examined  every  link 
of  the  chain  of  my  argument,  I  think  it  amply  strong  to  support  the  con- 
clusions attached  to  it.  Though  there  might  have  been  drawn  from  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  many  additional  arguments  corroborative  of  what 
has  been  said,  yet,  at  present,  I  shall  add  no  more ;  as  I  think  that  what 
has  been  brought  forward  has  just  claims  to  be  considered  by  the  impartial 
as  quite  sufficient  to  prove  these  two  points — that  the  New  Testament  can 
neither  subsist  with  the  Old  Testament,  nor  without  it ;  and  that  the  New 
Testament  system  was  built  first  upon  a  mistake,  and  afterwards  buttressed 
up  with  forged  and  apocryphal  documents. 

Let  the  candid  now  judge,  whether  the  author,  knowing  these  things,  or, 
at  least  persuaded  of  their  truth,  could  have  persisted  in  affirming,  (in  a 
place  where  sincerity  is  expected),  in  the  name  of  the  Almighty,  that  the 
claims  of  the  New  Testament  were  valid,  without  being  a  hypocrite,  and 
an  impostor. 

Let  them  also  consider,  whether,  after  being  unable  to  obtain  a  satisfac- 
tory refutation  of  the  objections  contained  in  this  volume,  his  resigning  a 
profession  whose  duties  obliged  him  to  say  what  he  was  convinced  was  talse, 
was  conduct  to  be  repiehended.  And  lastly,  he  appeals  to  the  good  sense 
of  the  public,  for  a  decision,  whether,  with  such  objections  and  difficulties 
weighing  upon  his  mind,  as  he  has  now  exposed,  his  conduct  in  that  respect 
can  reasonably  be  atributed  to  the  unmanly  influence  of  caprice  and  fickle- 
ness, (as  has  been  circulated  by  some  who  had  an  interest  in  making  it 
believed  ;)  or  to  the  just  influence  of  motives  deserving  a  better  name. 

With  regard  to  the  unfortunate  people  whose  arguments  have  been 
brought  forward  in  this  volume,  we  tiave,  reader,  now  gone  over,  and 
distinctly  felt,  the  whole  ground  of  the  controversy  between  them  and  their 
persecutors,  mentioned  in  the  Preface.  And  as  they  make  use  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  a  foundation,  admitted,  and  necessarily  admitted  by  Christians, 
to  be  of  divine  authority,  and  are  surx'ounded  bj  the  bulwai'ks  they  have  raised 
out  of  the  demolished  entrenchments  of  their  adversaries,  I  do  not  see  but 
that  "  their  castle's  strength  may  laugh  a  siege  to  scorn."  And  after  reviewing, 
and  revolving,  over  and  over  in  my  own  mind  the  arguments  oyi  both  sides,  I 
am  obliged  to  believe,  that  the  stoutest  Polemical  GoUah  who  may  venture 
to  attack  it,  especially  their  strong  hold — their  arguments  about  the 
Messiahship,  will  find  to  his  cost,  that  when  his  weak  point  is  but  known,  the 
mightiest  Achilles  must  fall  before  the  feeblest  Paris,  whose  arrow  is — aimed 
at  his  Heel. 

The  author  hopes,  and  thinks  he  has  a  right  to  expect,  that  whoever 
may  attempt  to  answer  his  book,  will  do  it  fairly,  like  a  man  of  candour ; 
without  trying  to  evade  the  main  question — that  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus. 
Ho  fears,  that  he  shall  see  an  answer  precisely  resembling  the  many  others 
he  has  seen  upon  that  subject.  Except  two — those  of  Sukes,  and  Jeff"ries 
(who  acknowledge  that  miracles  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  the 
Messiahship,  which  can  be  decided  by  the  Old  Testament  only ;) — all  that  he 
has  ever  met  with,  evade  this  question,  and  slide  over  to  the  ground  of 
miracles.  Such  conduct  in  an  answerer  of  this  book  would  be  very  unfair, 
and  also  very  absurd.  For  the  case  is  precisely  resembling  the  following — 
A  father  informs  by  letter  his  sou  in  a  foreign  country,  that  he  is  about  to 
send  him  a  Tutor,  whom  he  will  know  by  the  following  marks ;  "  He  is 
learned  in  the  mathematics,  and  the  physical  sciences  ;  acquainted  with  the 
learned  languages,  and  an  excellent  physician ;  of  a  dark  complexion ;  six 


100 

feet  high,  and  with  a  voice  loud,  and  commanding."  By  and  by,  a  maa 
comes  to  the  young  man,  professing  to  be  this  tutor  sent  to  him  by  his  . 
father.  On  examining  the  man,  and  comparing  him  with  the  description  in 
his  father's  letter,  he  finds  him  totally  unlike  the  person  he  had  been  taught 
to  expect.  Instead  of  being  acquainted  with  the  sciences,  therein  mentioned, 
ho  knows  nothing  about  them ;  instead  of  being  "  six  feet  high,  of  a  dark 
complexion,  and  with  a  voice  loud  and  commanding,"  he  is  a  diminutive 
creature  of  five  feet,  of  a  light  complexion,  with  a  voice  like  a  woman's. 

The  young  man,  with  his  father's  letter  in  his  hand,  tells  the  pretended 
tutor,  that  he  certainly  cannot  be  the  person  he  has  been  told  to  expect. 
The  man  persists,  and  appeals  to  certain  "  wonderful  works"  he  performs  in 
order  to  convince  the  young  man,  that  he  is  acquainted  with  the  sciences 
aforesaid,  and  that  he  is  also  six  feet  high;  of  a  dark  complexion;  and  talks 
like  an  Emperor !  The  young  man  replies.  "  Friend,  you  are  either  an 
enthusiast,  a  mad  man,  or  something  worse.  As  to  your  '  signs  and  wonders,* 
I  have  been  warmd  in  my  father's  letter  to  pay  no  regard  to  anr/  such  things 
in  this  case.  Besides,  you  ought  to  be  sensible,  that  your  identity  with  the 
person  I  am  taught  by  my  father's  letter  to  expect,  can  be  only  determined 
by  companng  you  with  the  description  of  him  given  therein.  Whether  your 
'wonderful  works'  are  real  miracles  or  not,  I  neither  know,  nor  care.  At 
<tny  rate,  they  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  any  thing  to  the  purpose  in 
this  case.  For  you  to  pretend,  that  they  prove  what  you  offer  them  to  prove, 
is  quite  absurd  ;  you  might  as  well,  and  as  reasonably,  pretend,  that  they  could 
prove  Aristotle  to  have  been  Alexander ;  or  the  Methodist  George  Whitfield 
to  be  the  Emperor  Napoleon  Bonaparte !" 

To  conclude,  if  any  person  should  feel  inclined  to  attempt  to  refute  this 
book,  let  him  do  it  like  a  man ;  without  evading  the  question,  or  equivo- 
cating, or  caviling  about  little  things.  Let  him  consider  the  principal 
question,  and  the  main  arguments  on  which  he  perceives  that  the  author 
relies,  and  not  pass  over  these  silently,  and  hold  up  a  few  petty  mistakes  and 
subsidiary  arguments  as  specimens  of  the  whole  book.  Such  a  mode  of 
defence  would  be  very  disengenuous,  and  with  a  discerning  reader,  perfectly 
futile  and  insufficient.  It  would  be  as  if  a  man  prostrate,  and  bleeding 
under  a  lion  whose  teeth  and  claws  were  infixed  in  his  throat,  should  tear 
a  handful  of  hairs  out  of  the  animal's  mane,  and  hold  them  up  as  proofs  of 
victory. 

In  fine,  let  him,  before  his  undertaking,  carefully  consider  these  pungent 
words  of  Bishop  Beveridge,  "Opposite  answers,  and  downright  arguments 
advantage  a  cause  ;  but  when  a  disputant  leaves  many  things  untouched,  as  if 
they  were  too  hot  for  his  fingers;  and  declines  the  weight  of  other  things,  and 
alters  the  true  state  of  the  question  :  it  is  a  shrewd  sign,  either  that  he  has  not 
weighed  things  maturely,  or  else  (which  is  more  probable,)  that  he  maintaint 
a  desperate  cause." 


FINIS. 


APPENDIX  A.* 

As  reasons  for  this  assertion,  (that  "the  account  of  the  resurrection 
given  by  the  evangelists  is  no  better,  nay,  xvorse,  than  conjecture,  as  it  is  a 
mere  forgeiy  of  the  second  century. — Vide  page  86)  take  the  following  facts, 
•which  are  now  ascertained,  and  can  be  proved: — 1.  Several  sects  of 
Christians  in  the  first  century,  in  the  apostolic  era,  denied  that  Jesus  was 
crucified,  as  the  Basildeans,  &c.  The  author  of  the  epistle  ascribed  to 
Barnabus,  I  think,  denied  it,  and  the  author  of  the  gospel  of  Thomas  certainly 
did.  2.  The  Jewish  Christians,  the  desciples  of  the  twelve  apostles,  never 
received,  but  rejected  every  individual  book  of  the  present  New  Testament. 
They  held  in  especial  abomination  the  writings  of  Paul,  whom  they  called 
"an  apostate;"  and  there  is  extant,  in  "  Cotelerius'  Patres  Apostolici,"  a  letter 
ascribed  to  Peter,  written  to  James  at  Jerusalem,  wherein  he  complains 
bitterly  of  Paul,  styling  him  "  a  lawless  man,"  and  a  crafty  misrepresenter 
of  him  (Peter.)  and  his  doctrine,  in  that  Paul  represented,  every  where,  Peter 
as  being  secretly  of  the  same  opinions  with  himself;  against  this  he  enters  his 
protest,  and  declares  that  he  reprobates  the  doctrine  of  Paul.  (See  Appendix 
B.)  3.  It  is  certain,  that  from  the  beginning,  the  Christians  were  never 
agreed  as  to  points  of  faith ;  and  that  the  apostles  themselves,  so  far  from  being 
considered  as  inspired  and  infallible,  were  frequently  contradicted,  thwarted, 
and  set  at  naught  by  their  own  converts  :  and  there  were  as  many  sects, 
heresies,  and  quarrels,  in  the  first  century,  as  in  the  second  or  third.  4. 
Jesus  and  his  apostles  were  no  sooner  ofi"  the  stage,  than  forgeries  of  all  kinds 
broke  in  with  irresistible  force :  Gospels,  Epistles,  Acts,  Revelations  without 
number,  published  in  the  names,  and  under  the  feigned  authority,  of  Jesus 
and  his  apostles,  abounded  in  the  Christian  church;  and  as  some  of  these 
were  as  early  in  time  as  any  of  the  writings  in  the  present  canon  of  the  New 
Testament,  so  they  were  received  promiscuously  with  them,  and  held  in  equal 
credit  and  veneration,  and  read  in  the  public  assemblies  as  of  equal  authority 
with  those  now  received.  5.  The  very  learned  and  pious  Dodwell,  in  his  Dis- 
sertations on  Irseneus  avows,  that  he  cannot  find  in  ecclesiastical  antiquities, 
(which  he  understood  better  than  any  man  of  his  age,)  any  evidence  at  all, 
that  the  four  Gospels  were  known  or  heard  of,  before  the  time  of  Trajan,  and 
Adrian,  i.  e.  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  i.  e.  nearly  a  hundred 
years  aJfter  the  apostles  were  dead.  (See  Appendix  C.)  Long  before  this  time, 
we  know  that  there  were  extant  numbers  of  spurious  gospels,  forged,  and 
ascribed  to  the  apostles ;  and  we  have  not  the  least  evidence  to  be  depended 
on,  that  those  now  i-eceived  were  not  also  apocryphal.  For  they  were  written 
nobody  certainly  knows  by  whom,  or  where,  or  when.  They  first  appeared  in  an 
age  of  credulity,  when  forgeries  of  this  kind  abounded  and  were  received  with 
avidity  by  those  whose  opinions  they  favoured,  w^hile  they  were  rejected  as 
Bourious  by  many  sects  of  Christians,  who  asserted  that  they  were  possessed  of 
the  genuine  apostles,  which,  however,  those  who  received  "  the  four,"  denied. 
6.  All  the  different  sects  of  Christians,  without  a  known  exception,  altered, 
interpolated,  and  without  scruple  garbled,  their  different  copies  of  their  various 

*  This  was,  originally,  a  note;  but,  in  order  not  to  divert  too  much  the  reader's 
attention,  it  has  been  thought  advbable  to  insert  it  here. — D. 


102 

and  discordant  gospels,  in  order  to  adapt  them  to  their  jarring  and  whimsical 
philosophical  notions.  Celsus  accuses  them  of  this,  and  they  accuse  each  other. 
And  that  they  were  continually  tauiperiug  with  their  copies  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  is  evident  from  the  immense  number  of  various  readings,  and 
from  some  whole  jihrases,  and  even  verses,  which  for  knavish  purposes  wero 
foisted  into  the  text,  but  have  been  detected,  and  exposed  by  Griesbach,  and 
othei'S.  They  also  forged  certain  rhapsodies  under  the  name  of  "  Si/bbilme 
Oracles,"  and  then  adduce  them  as  prophetic  proofs  of  the  truth  of  their  re- 
ligion. They  also  interpolated  certain  clumsy  forgeries  as  prophecies  of  Jesus 
into  their  copies  of  their  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament.  7.  The  present 
canon  of  the  New  Testament  has  never  been  sanctioned  by  the  general  consent 
of  Christians.  The  Syrian  church  rejects  some  of  its  books; — some  of  its  books 
were  not  admitted  until  after  long  opposition,  and  not  until  several  hundred 
years  after  Jesus.  The  lists  of  what  were  considered  as  canonical  books,  dif- 
fer in  different  ages,  and  some  books  now  acknowledged  by  all  Christians  to  bo 
forgeries,  were  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  considered  as  equally 
apostolic  as  those  now  received,  and  as  such,  were  publicly  read  in  tho 
churches.  8.  The  reason  why  we  have  not  now  extant  gospels,  different 
and  contradictory  to  those  now  received,  is,  because  that  the  sect  or  party 
■which  finally  got  the  better  of  its  adversaries,  and  styled  itself  Catholic,  or 
orthodox,  took  care  to  burn  and  destroy  the  heretics,  and  their  gospels 
with  them.  They  likewise  took  care  to  hunt  up  and  burn  the  books  of  the 
Pagan  adversaries  of  Christianity,  "  because  they  were  shockingly  offensive 
to  pious  ears."  9.  Semler  considered  the  New  Testament  as  a  collection  of 
pious  frauds,  written  for  pious  purposes,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
century,  (the  very  time  assigned  for  their  first  appearance  by  Dodwell.) 
Evanson  adopts,  and  gives  good  reasons  for  a  similar  opinion  with  regard  to 
most  of  the  books  which  go  to  compose  it.  Lastly.  The  reason  why  the 
New  Testament  canon  has  been  so  long  respected,  seems  to  have  been  purely 
owing  to  the  credulity  of  the  ignorant,  and  the  laziness,  indifference,  or/ears 
of  the  learned. 

Douglas,  in  his  famous  "Criterion,"  gives  us,  as  infallible  tests,  by  which 
we  may  distinguish  when  written  accounts  of  miracles  are  fabulous,  the 
following  marks : — 

1.  "We  have  reason  to  suspect  (he  says)  the  accounts  to  he  false,  when 
they  are  not  published  to  the  world  till  after  the  time  when  they  are  said  to 
have  been  performed." 

2.  "  We  have  reason  to  suspect  them  to  be  false,  when  they  are  not 
published  in  the  place  where  it  is  pretended  the  facts  were  wrought,  but  are 
propagated  only  at  a  great  distance  from  the  supposed  scene  of  action." 

3.  "  Supposing  the  accounts  to  have  the  two  fore-mentioned  qualifi- 
cations, we  still  have  reason  to  suspect  them  to  be  false,  if  in  the  time  when, 
and  at  the  place  where,  they  took  their  rise,  they  might  be  suffered  to  pass 
without  examination." 

These  arc  the  marks  he  gives  us  as  infallible  tests  by  which  we  may 
distinguish  the  accounts  of  miracles  in  the  New  Testament  to  be  trtie;  and 
accounts  of  miracles  in  other  books  (though  supported  by  more  testimony 
than  the  former,)  to  be  false  ;  with  how  much  justice,  may  be  evident  from 
tho  following  observations : — 

1.  If  "we  have  reason  to  suspect  the  accounts  to  be  false,  when  they 
are  not  published  to  the  world  till  long  after  the  time  when  they  are  said  to 
have  been  performed,"  then  we  have  reasons  to  suspect  the  accounts  givea 
in  the  four  gospels ;  for  we  have  no  proof  in  the  world,  that  any  of  them 
were  written  till  nearly  one  hundred  years  after  the  supposed  writers  of 
them  were  all  dead. 


103 

2.  If  "we  have  reason  to  suspect  them  to  be  false,  when  they  are  not 
published  in  the  place  where  it  is  pretended  the  facts  were  wrought,  but  are 
propagated  only  at  a  great  distance  from  the  supposed  scene  of  action,"  then 
it  is  still  further  evident  that  the  accounts  in  question  are  not  true.  For 
they  were  apparently  none  of  them  published  in  Judea,  the  scene  of  the 
events  recorded  in  them.  But  it  is  pretty  clear  that  they  were  written  in 
countries  at  a  distance  from  Palestine.  And  the  facts  recorded  in  them  were 
no  where  so  little  believed  as  in  Judea,  among  the  people  in  whose  sight  they 
are  said  to  have  been  wrought,  where  they  ought,  if  true,  to  have  met  with 
most  credit.  It  is,  however,  evident  from  the  histories  themselves,  that 
these  stories  were  laughed  at,  by  the  learned  and  intelligent  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  and  disbelieved  by  the  great  body  of  the  people.  In  truth  the  first 
Christians  were  merely  one  hundred  and  twenty  Galilaians,  who  asserted  to 
their  co-religionists,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  expected  Messiah.  It 
was  a  mere  national  quarrel  between  the  great  body  of  the  Jews,  and  a  few 
schismatics.  This  is  evident  from  the  Acts,  where  we  find  that  for  several 
years  they  confined  their  preaching  to  Jews  only.  Till  the  conversion  of 
Cornelius,  they  do  not  appear  to  have  thought  the  Gentiles  any  way  interested 
in  their  dispute  with  their  countrymen.  So  that  it  is  not  improbable,  (as  the 
Jewish  Christians  dwindled  very  rapidly,)  that  had  it  not  been  for  the  Gentile 
proselytes  to  Judaism,  Christianity  would  have  perished  in  its  cradle.  These 
people  were  very  numerous,  and  formed  the  connecting  link  betweeen  the 
Jews  and  the  Gentiles.  And  it  was  through  the  medium  of  these  people,  that 
Christianity  became  known  to  the  heathens.  For  we  find  that  after  the 
apostles  could  make  nothing  of  the  stubborn  Jews  "they  shook  their 
garments,  and  told  them  that  from  henceforth  we  go  to  the  Gentiles." — 
Accordingly,  when  the  apostles  preached  in  the  synagogues,  and  the  Jews 
"  contradicted,  and  blasphemed,"  and  made  fun  of  their  mode  of  proving  from 
the  prophets,  "that  Jesus  was  the  Christ;  yet  the  "proselytes  and  devout 
twomen"  listened,  and  believed. 

3.  If  "supposing  the  accounts  to  have  the  two  foregoing  qualifications, 
we  still  may  suspect  them  to  be  false ;  if,  in  the  time  when,  and  in  the 
place  where,  they  took  their  rise,  they  might  be  suffered  to  pass  without 
examination,"  we  have  still  less  reason  to  believe  the  gospels.  For  one  reason 
why  they  might  be  suffered  to  pass  without  examination  is,  where  the 
miracles  proposed  coincided  with  the  notions  and  superstitious  prejudices 
of  those  whom  they  were  reported,  and  who,  on  that  account,  might  be  prone 
to  receive  them  unexamined.  Now,  we  have  documents  in  plenty,  which 
abundantly  prove,  along  with  the  virtues,  the  extreme  credulity  and  simplicity 
of  the  Primitive  Christians,  whose  maxim  was,  "  believe,  but  do  not  examine, 
and  thy  faith  shall  save  thee."  Another  very  good  reason  why  they  might 
be  suffered  to  pass  without  examination  is,  that  the  miracles  of  the  gospels 
were  entirely  unknown  to,  or  at  least  acknowledged  by,  any  heathen  or  Jew  of 
the  age  in  which  they  are  recorded  to  have  happened.  Nobody  seems  to  have 
known  a  syllable  about  them  but  the  apostles  and  their  converts.  Even 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  not  generally  known  to  the  heathens 
until  some  hundred  years  after  the  birth  of  Jesus ;  and  it  seems  from  the 
few  fragments  of  their  works  come  down  to  us,  that  the  only  notice  they 
did  take  of  them,  was  to  accuse  them  of  telling  lies  and  old  wives  fables. 
And  as  for  the  Jews,  the  origin  and  early  propagation  of  Christianity  was  so 
Tery  obscure,  that  those  who  lived  nearest  the  times  of  the  apostles,  do  not 
Bcem  to  have  known  any  thing  about  them,  or  their  doctrines. 

Though  a  little  out  of  place,  yet  I  will  here  adduce  a  fact  which  illustrates 
and  exemplifies  the  power  of  enthusiasm,  to  make  people  believe  they  saw 
•what  they  did  not  see.     Lucian  gives  an  account  of  one  Peregrinus,  a  philo- 


104 

sophist  very  famous  in  his  time,  who  had  a  great  number  of  disciples.  He 
ended  his  life  by  throwing:  himself,  in  the  presence  of  assembled  thousands, 
into  a  burning  pile.  Yet  such  was  the  enthusiastic  veneration  of  his 
followers,  that  some  of  his  disciples  did  solemenly  aver,  that  they  had  seen 
him  after  his  death,  clothed  in  white,  and  crowned  ;  and  they  were  believed, 
insomuch  that  altars  and  statues  were  erected  to  Pcregrinus  as  to  a  demi-god. 
See  Lucian's  account. 

APPENDIX  B. 

See  Cotelerius  "  Patres  Apostolic,"  Tom.  1,  p.  602. 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  Peter  to  James,  prefixed  to  the  Clementines. 
"  For,  if  this  be  not  done,  (says  Peter,  after  entreating  James  not  to  com- 
municate his  preachings  to  any  Gentile  without  previous  examination,)  our 
speech  of  truth  will  be  divided  into  many  opinions,  nor  do  I  know  this  thing 
as  being  a  prophet,  but  as  seeing  even  now  the  beginning  of  this  evil. 
For  some  from  among  the  Gentiles  have  rejected  my  legal  preaching, 
embracing  the  trijling,  and  lawless  doctrine  of  a  man  who  is  an  enemy  ;  and 
these  things,  some  have  endeavoured  to  do  now  in  my  own  lifetime,  transform- 
ing my  words  by  various  interpretations,  to  the  destruction  o/theLaiv ;  as  if  / 
had  been  of  the  same  mind,  but  dared  not  openly  profess  it,  (see  Galatians  ii.  11, 
12,  &c.,)  which  be  far  from  me!  For  this  were  to  act  against  the  law  of 
God,  spoken  by  Moses,  and  which  has  the  testimony  of  our  Lord  Jor  its 
perpetual  duration;  since  he  thus  has  said,  "Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass 
away,  yet  one  jot,  or  one  tittle,  shall  not  pass  from  the  law."  But  these,  I 
know  not  how,  promising  to  deliver  my  opinion,  (see  Galatians  as  above,) 
take  upon  them  to  explain  the  words  they  heard  from  me,  better  than  I  that 
Bpoke  them ;  telling  their  disciples,  my  sense  was  that  of  which  I  had  not  so 
much  as  thought.  Now,  if  in  my  own  life  time,  they  dare  feign  such  things, 
how  much  more  will  those  that  come  after,  do  the  same." 

APPENDIX  C. 

Extract  from  Dodwell's  Dissertations  on  Irenseus,  Diss.  1,  p.p.  38,  39. 
"  "  The  Canonical  writings  (i.  e.  of  the  New  Testament),  lay  concealed  in  the 
coffers  of  private  churches,  or  persons,  till  the  latter  times  of  Trajan, 
or  rather  perhaps  of  Adrian  ;  so  that  they  could  not  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  church.  For  if  they  had  been  published,  they  would  have  been  over- 
whelmed under  such  a  multitude  as  were  then  of  apocryphal  and  suppositious 
books,  that  a  new  examination  and  a  new  testimony  would  be  necessary  to 
distinguish  them  from  these  false  ones.  And  it  is  from  this  new  testimony 
(whereby  the  genuine  writings  of  the  apostles  were  distinguised  from  the 
spurious  pieces  which  went  under  their  names,)  that  depends  all  the  authority 
which  the  truly  apostolic  writings  have  formerly  obtained,  or  which  they 
have  at  present  in  the  Catholic  Church.  But  this  fresh  attestation  of  the 
canon  is  subject  to  the  same  inconveniences  with  those  traditions  of  the 
ancient  persons  that  I  defend,  and  whom  Irenseus  both  heard  and  saw  ;  for  it 
is  equally  distant  from  the  original,  and  could  not  be  made  except  by  such 
only  as  bad  reached  those  remote  times.  But  it  is  very  certain  that  before 
the  period  I  mentioned  of  Trajan's  time,  the  canon  of  the  sacred  books  was 
not  yet  fixed,  nor  any  certain  number  of  books  received  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  whose  authority  must  ever  after  serve  to  determine  matters  of  faith; 
neither  were  the  spurious  pieces  of  heretics  yet  rejected,  nor  were  the  faithful 


105 

admonished  to  beware  of  them  for  the  future.  Likewise,  the  true  writings 
of  the  apostles  used  to  be  so  bound  up  in  one  volume  mth  the  apocryphal, 
that  it  was  not  manifest  by  any  mark  of  public  censure  which  of  them  should 
he  preferred  to  the  other.  We  have  at  this  day,  certain  authentic  writings  of 
ecclesiastical  authors  of  those  times,  as  Clemens  Romanus,  Barnabas, 
Hermas,  Ignatius,  and  Polycarp,  who  wrote  in  the  same  order  wherein  I 
have  named  them,  and  after  all  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
except  Jude,  and  the  two  Johns.  But  in  Hermas  you  shall  not  meet  with  one 
passage,  or  any  mention  of  the  Neiv  Testament;  nor  in  all  the  rest  is  any  one  of 
the  evangelists  called  by  his  own  name.  And  if  sometimes  they  cite  any 
passages  like  those  we  read  in  our  gospels  ;  yet,  you  will  find  them  so  much 
changed,  and  for  the  most  part  so  interpolated,  that  it  cannot  he  known, 
whether  they  produced  them  out  of  oars,  or  some  apocryphal  gospels  ;  nay, 
they  sometimes  cite  passages  which  it  is  most  certain  are  not  in  the  present 
gospels.  From  hence,  therefore,  it  is  evident  that  no  difference  was  yet  put 
between  the  apocryphal  and  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  especially 
if  it  be  considered,  that  they  pass  no  censure  on  the  apocryphal,  nor  leave 
any  mark  whereby  the  reader  mighti  discei'n  whether  they  attributed  less 
authority  to  the  spurious  than  to  the  genuine  gospels ;  from  whence  it  may 
reasonably  be  suspected,  that  if  they  cite  sometimes  any  passages  conform- 
able to  ours,  it  was  not  done  through  any  certain  design,  as  if  dubious  things 
were  to  be  confirmed  only  by  the  canonical  books,  so  as  it  is  very  possible 
that  both  those  and  the  like  passages  may  have  been  borrowed  from  other 
gospels  besides  these  we  now  have.  But  what  need  I  mention  books  that 
are  not  canonical,  when  indeed  it  does  not  appear  from  those  of  our 
canonical  books  which  were  last  written,  that  the  church  knew  any  thing  of 
the  gospels,  or  that  the  clergy  made  a  common  use  of  them.  The  writers  of 
those  times  do  not  chequer  their  works  with  texts  of  the  New  Testament, 
■which  yet  is  the  custom  of  the  moderns,  and  was  also  theirs  in  such  books 
as  they  acknowledge  for  scripture ;  for  they  most  frequently  cite  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  would,  doubtless,  have  done  so  by  those  of  the 
New,  if  they  had  then  been  received  as  canonical." 

So  far  Mr.  Dodwell,  and  (excepting  the  genuineness  of  the  writings  of 
Barnabas  and  the  rest,  for  they  are  incontestably  ancient,)  it  is  certain  that 
the  matters  of  fact  with  regard  to  the  New  Testament  are  all  true.  Whoever 
has  an  inclination  to  write  on  this  subject,  is  furnished  from  this  passage  with 
a  great  many  curious  disquisitions  wherein  to  show  his  penetration  and  his 
judgment,  as — how  the  immediate  successors  and  disciples  of  the  apostles 
could  so  grossly  confound  the  genuine  writings  of  their  masters  with  such  as 
■were  falsely  attributed  to  them  ;  or  since  they  were  in  the  dark  about  these 
matters  so  early,  how  come  such  as  followed  them,  by  a  better  light ;  why  all 
those  books  which  are  cited  by  the  earliest  fathers  with  the  same  respect  as 
those  now  received,  should  not  be  accounted  equally  authentic  by  them ;  and 
"what  stress  should  be  laid  on  the  testimony  of  those  fathers,  who  not  only 
contradict  one  another,  but  are  often  inconsistent  with  themselves,  in  relating 
the  very  same  facts ;  with  a  great  many  other  difficulties,  which  deserve  a 
clear  solution  from  any  capable  person. 

I  have  said  the  ancient  heretics  asserted  that  the  present  gospels  were 
forgeries.  As  an  example  of  this,  take  the  following,  from  the  works  of 
Faustus,  quoted  by  Augustine,  contra  Faustum  Lib.  32,  c.  2.  "  You  think, 
(says  Faustus  to  his  adversaries,)  that  of  all  the  books  in  the  world  the 
Testament  of  the  Son  only,  could  not  be  corrupted ;  that  it  alone  contains 
nothing  which  ought  to  be  disallowed ;  especially  when  it  appears,  that  it 
was  not  written  hy  the  apostles,  but  a  long  tinu  after  them,  by  certain  obscure 
persons,  who,  lest  no  credit  should  be  given  to  the  stories  they  told  of  what 

N 


lOG 

they  could  not  know,  did  prefix,  to  their  writings,  the  names  of  the  apostles^ 
and  partly  of  those  who  succeeded  the  apostles,  aflirniing,  that  what  they 
•wrote  themselves,  was  written  by  these.  Wherein  they  seem  to  me  to  have 
been  the  more  heinously  injurious  to  the  disciples  of  Christ,  by  attributing 
to  them  what  they  wrote  themselves  so  disso7ia7it  and  repugnavt ;  and  that 
they  pretended  to  write  those  gospels  under  their  names,  which  are  so  full  of 
mistakes,  of  contradictor^/  relations  and  opiitions,  that  they  are  neither  coherent 
with  themselves,  nor  consistent  ivith  one  another.  What  is  this,  therefore,  but 
to  throw  a  calumny  on  good  men,  and  to  fix  the  accusation  of  discord  on  the 
unanimous  society  of  Christ's  digciples." 


ADDENDA. 

There  is,  in  the  Gospel  ascribed  to  John,  a  passage,  quoted  as  a  prophecy, 
-which,  as  it  has  been  looked  on  as  a  proof  text,  ought  to  have  been  mentioned 
in  the  7th  chapter.  It  is  this.  The  evangelist  (John  xix.  23)  says,  "  Then 
the  soldiers,  when  they  had  crucified  Jesus,  took  his  garments,  and  made  four 
parts,  to  every  soldier  a  part ;  and  also  his  coat — now  the  coat  was  without 
seam,  woven  from  the  top  throughout.  They  said,  therefore,  among  them- 
selves, '  Let  us  not  rend  it,  but  cast  lots  for  it' ;  that  the  Scripture  might  be 
fulfilled,  which  saith,  '  They  parted  my  raiment  among  them,  and  for  my 
vesture  they  did  cast  lots.' "  Now,  however  plausible  this  prophesy  may 
appear,  it  is  one  of  the  most  impudent  applications  of  passages  from  the  Old 
Testament  that  occurs  in  the  New.  Jt  is  taken  from  the  18th  verse  of  the 
22d  Psahn,  which  Psalm  was  probably  made  by  David,  in  reference  to  his 
humiliating  and  wretched  expulsion  from  Jerusalem  by  his  son  Absalom,  and 
what  was  done  in  consequence,  viz.,  that  he  was  hunted  by  ferocious  enemies, 
whom  he  compares  to  furious  bulls,  and  roaring  lions,  gaping  upon  him  to 
devour  him  ;  that  his  palace  was  plundered,  and  that  they  divided  his  treasured 
garments,  (in  the  East,  where  the  fashions  never  change,  every  great  man 
has  constantly  presses  full  of  hundreds  and  thousands  of  garments,  many  of 
them  very  costly  :  they  are  considered  as  a  valuable  part  of  his  riches),  and 
cast  lots  for  hir  robes.  This  is  the  real  meaning  of  this  passage  quoted  as  a 
prophecy.  In  the  same  Psalm,  there  is  another  verse,  which  has  been  from 
time  immemorial  quoted  as  a  prophecy  of  the  crucifixion,  (v.  16,)  "  They 
pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet."  In  tlie  original,  there  seems  to  have  been  a 
woi'd  dropped  importing  "they  tear,"  or  something  like  it,  for  it  is  literally, 
"  Like  a  lion — my  hands  and  my  feet,"  and  there  is  there  no  word  answering 
to  "  pierced."  The  meaning,  however,  of  the  verse  is  not  diffcult  to  be 
discerned,  "  dogs  have  compassed  me ;  the  assembly  of  wicked  men  have 
enclosed  me  ;  like  a  lion— (they  tear)  my  hands  and  my  feet."  The  meaning 
may  be  discovered  from  the  context,  where  David  represents  himself  as  in 
the  utmost  distress,  helpless,  and  abandoned  amidst  his  enemies,  raging  like 
■wild  beasts  around  him ;  then,  by  a  strong,  but  striking  Oriental  figure,  he 
represents  himself  like  a  carcase  surrounded  by  dogs,  who  are  busied  in 
tearing  the  flesh  from  his  bones  ;  their  teeth  Jixed  in  his  hands  and  feet,  and 
pulling  him  asunder.  This  is  the  import  of  the  place,  and  this  interpreta- 
tion is  at  last  adopted,  for  the  first  time,  I  believe,  by  Christians,  in  the  new- 
version  of  the  Psalms  used  by  the  Unitarian  Church  in  London. 

There  is  not  a  more  palpable  instance  of  the  facility  with  which  good 
natured  and  voracious  piety  is  made  to  swallow  the  most  flimsy  arguments, 
if  only  agreeable  to  its  wishes  and  wants,  than  the  case  under  consideration. 
This  Psalm,  containing  these  passages,  "  they  parted  my  raiment  among 
them;"  and  "  they  pierced  my  hands  and  my  i'eet,"  is  read,  and  for  ages  has 
been  read,  in  the  name  of  God,  to  the  good  people  of  the  Church  of  England, 
on  every  Good'  Friday,  as  undoubtedly  a  prophesy  of  the  Crucifixion  ;  when 
yet  the  learned  divines  of  the  Church  of  England  (and  of  these  it  can  boast 
a  noble  Catalogue  indeed)  certainly  know,  and  are  conscious  that  the  Psalm, 
which  contains  these  passages,  has  no  more  relation  to  Jesus,  than  it  has  to 
Nebuchadnezzar. 


108 

A  reference  ought  to  have  been  subjoined  at  the  end  of  the  10th  chapter 
to  the  dialogue,  called  "  Philopatris"  in  Lucian's  Works,  for  an  account  of 
thr  customs,  habits,  and  personal  appearance  of  the  early  Christians,  cor- 
roborative of  what  is  said  in  the  17th  and  18th  chapters  of  this  work.  Lest, 
however,  Lucian's  testimony  in  this  mattershould  be  objected  to,  because  he 
was  a  satirist,  and,  of  course,  may  have  been  guilty  of  giving  an  overcharged 
picture  of  the  subjects  of  his  ridicule,  I  request  the  reader  to  peruse,  if  he 
can  obtain  it,  "Lami's  Account  of  the  domestic  habits  and  personal  appear- 
ance and  practices  of  the  primitive  Christians."  Lami  was  a  very  learned  and 
sincere  Christian,  and  of  course  his  testimony  cannot  be  objected  to,  and, 
the  reader  will  find,  on  a  perusal  of  his  work,  that  what  I  have  asserted  ia 
the  17th  and  18th  chapters  is  altogether  true,  and  not  the  whole  ti'uth 
neither.  Indeed,  that  the  statements  in  those  chapters,  as  to  the  effects  of 
the  pectdiar  maxims  of  the  New  Testament  upon  the  heart  and  understand- 
ing, are  substantially  correct,  will,  I  believe,  be  discovered  by  asking  any 
honest  individual  among  the  Methodists,  who  is  an  enthusiast,  i.  e  sincere, 
and  thorough-going  in  his  religion.  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  or  she  will 
avow,  without  hesitation,  to  the  enquii'er,  and  glory  in  it,  that  chastity  is 
'more  honourable  than  marriage  ;  that  faith  is  every  thing ;  that  doubt  is 
damnable,  and  a  proof  of  "  an  unregenerated  mind  ;"  that  all  the  goods  and 
pleasures  of  this  world  are  "trash;"  that  human  institutions  are  mere 
"  carnal  ordinances  ;"  and  that  human  science  and  learning  is  a  snare  to  faith 
and  an  abomination  to  a  true  disciple  of  the  cross. 


[:^*^  As  allusion  has  been  made  by  Mr.  English  to  the  fact,  that  "  the 
expressions  of  Jesus  were,  as  it  appears  from  the  Talmud,  proverbial  expres- 
sions in  use  among  the  Jews"  (vide  page  88),  we  have  thought  that  the 
subjoined  Essay  would  not  prove  unacceptable  to  the  inquii'ing  reader  who 
may  wish  to  see  some  further  proof  of  Mr.  English's  assertion  than  that  to 
which  he  has  necessarily  confined  himself.  The  Essay,  which  presents  a 
comparative  analysis  of  the  "  Sermon  on  the  Mount,"  is  the  production  of 
the  learned  Dr.  Zipser,  Rabbi  of  Alba  in  Hungary,  and  appeared  in  conse- 
cutive numbers  in  the  London  Jewish  Chronicle.  Its  origin,  as  the  reader 
will  find  from  the  Rabbi's  introductory  remarks,  was  owing  to  the  blind  and 
obstinate  opposition  of  an  uninformed  and  mistaken  zealot  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  to  the  admission  of  Jews  into  Parliament.— D.] 


THE  SERMON  ON  THE  MOUNT 

EXAMINED    IN    AN    E3SAT    ON    THE 

TALMUD  AND  THE  GOSPELS. 


BY   M.   ZIPSEB,   BABBI    OF   ALBA  (STUHLWEISSENBUBO),  HUNaAET. 


It  is  a  common  saying :  there  is  nothing  perfect  under  the  sun ;  and  the 
sages  of  old  held  the  opinion,  that  the  evil  spirit  of  men  rejoices  in  his 
fiendish  nature  to  spoil  their  best  joy,  by  distilling  a  drop  of  gall  into  their 
cup  of  pleasm-e.  This  our  co-rellgionists  of  the  English  metropolis  must 
have  felt  on  the  ever-memorable  1st  of  May,  1851,  on  the  day  when  the 
Exhibition  of  the  industry  of  all  nations,  opened,  and  when,  on  the  same  day, 
Mr  Newdegate,  M.P.,  opened  his  unholy  fire  against  the  Jews  of  Great 
Britain,  poured  forth  his  sallies  of  slander,  discharged  volleys  of  abuse  of 
rather  a  heavy  calibre,  and  laboured  industriously,  to  exhibit  a  multiplicity 
of  undigested  reasons,  in  justification  of  his  opposition  to  the  admission  of 
Jews  into  Parliament.  He  maintains  that  the  admission  of  Jews  into  the 
legislature  is  incompatible  with  the  Christian  character  of  the  house,  nor 
can  their  oath  taken  on  the  Old  Testament,  be  considered  sufficiently 
binding,  because  the  religion  of  the  Jews  as  practised  now,  is'  not  the  religion 
of  the  Bible,  but  their  canon  is  the  Mishna  and  the  Talmud,  the  moral 
standard  of  which  can  neither  be  valued  very  high,  nor  be  considered  in 
unison  with  the  demands  of  our  enlightened  age.  We  will,  since  we  are 
unacquainted  with  the  personal  character  of  our  assailant,  ascribe  his  vitupera- 
tion neither  to  personal  animosity  nor  to  religious  intolerance;  neither  will 
we  accuse  him  of  innate  malevolence,  nor  call  him  a  dogmatic  or  systematical 
Jew-hater,  but  admit  that  Mr.  N's  aversion  to  Jewish  M.  P.'s  sprung  from 
an  honesty  of  conviction,  that  the  welfare  of  the  nation  cannot,  with  safety, 
be  entrusted  to  men  whose  religion  and  morality  are  formed  by  the  Talmud, 
a  book  denounced  for  its  corrupt  precepts  and  dangerous  tendencies. — 
We  must  take  it  for  granted  (since  Mr.  N.'s  attack  is  only  directed  against 
Jews  and  the  Talmud,  decrying  them  and  the  latter  as  devoid  of  all  morality) 
that  the  gospel,  and  those  who  believe  in  it,  are  patterns  of  morality — which 
we  have  no  desire  to  dispute — and  that  those,  who  profess  the  religion 
taught  by  the  gospel,  are  qualified  to  sit  in  council,  and  deliberate  on  the 
welfare  of  the  nation  ;  for  if  such  was  not  his  con^ction,  Ave  doubt  not  that 
he,  as  an  honest  man,  and  an  honest  Christian,  would  resign  the  mission 
entrusted  to  him,  before  he  could  arrogate  to  himself  the  onerous  and 
thankless  task  of  accusing  the  Jews.  If  we  should  succeed — and  we  are 
sanguine  to  do  so  to  the  sartsfaction  of  all  our  readers — to  prove  that  all  the 
moral  precepts,  parables,  and  ethics  contained  in  the  gospel,  have  been 


110 

taught  by  the  Talmud ;  nay,  more,  that  many  precepts  have  been  more 
emphatically  and  cogently  enjoined  by  the  Talmud,  even  before  the  founder 
of  Christianity  appeared,  then  wo  think  wo  shall  have  ingratiated  ourselves 
with  Mr.  N.,  for  having  disabused  him  of  his  error;  and  shall  expect  to  see 
him  publicly  revoke  his  accusation,  which,  having  been  made  in  his  place  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  went  forth  to  all  the  world. 

We  will,  in  order  not  to  trespass  against  the  valuable  space  of  this  highly 
appreciated  periodical,  restrict  ourselves  to  a  challenge  of  the  5th,  6th,  and 
7th  chapters  of  Matthew,  known  as  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  shall 
endeavour  to  prove  the  antecedence  of  the  morals  promulgated  therein,  and 
which  can  be  called  the  quintessence  of  the  gospel,  as  existing  in  the  Talmud. 
-  Verse  .3  of  the  5th  chapter  runs  thus ;  "  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit." 
We  cannot  exactly  comprehend  the  real  meaning  of  this  sentence,  in  order 
to  quote  a  corresponding  one  in  the  Talmud.  The  original  has  it  thus  : — 
IItu>Xoi  Tio  Tlv(viJ.ari — and  the  vulgate  "pauperes  spiritii," — the  Syriac  trans- 
lation nna  k33dq.  We,  however,  take  the  phrase  "  poor  in  spirit,"  to  refer 
to  those  who  know  the  frailty  and  vanity  of  the  human  mind,  who  are  free 
from  all  presumption,  haughtiness,  and  pride,  and  who  resign  themselves  in 
everything  to  the  will  of  a  higher  power,  and  which  is  expressed  in  Hebrew 
by  nn  xdt  or  nn  baif  "  contrite,  or  humble,  in  spirit."  But  such  a  state  of  mind 
is  commended  in  the  Talmud  as  pleasing  to  the  Almighty.  "  Be  exceedingly 
humble  of  spirit" — (Ethics  5).  "  Be  humble  spirited  before  all  men." — 
(Ibid).  The  Talmud  compares,  moreover,  the  law  of  God  to  water ;  as  the 
water  seeketh  its  bed  in  a  low  country,  and  there  pursues  its  course,  thus  the 
law  can  only  be  preserved  by  those  who  are  of  a  humble  spirit.  In  another 
simile,  the  law  of  God  is  compared  to  wine :  like  as  wine  is  best  preserved  in 
earthen  vessels,  and  spoils  when  put  into  vessels  of  gold,  thus  the  law  abides 
with  the  humble  and  lowly,  and  shuns  the  haughty  and  the  proud  (Taanith  7.). 
The  Talmud  teaches  in  another  place :  "  Men  should  endeavour  to  act  in 
concert  and  after  the  will  of  their  Creator.  When  God  gave  the  law,  he 
disregai'ded  the  high  hills  and  mountains,  and  chose  the  lowly  Mount  Sinai ; 
and  when  He  first  appeared  unto  Moses,  He  revealed  Himself  to  him  out  of 
the  lowly  thorn-bush,  and  disdained  the  stately  and  lofty  trees."  "  Rabbi 
Joshua  said :  '  Behold,  how  acceptable  before  the  Lord  ai"e  the  humble  in 
spirit :  while  the  temple  stood,  meat-offerings  and  burnt  sacrifices  were 
oflfered  in  expiation  for  the  sins  committed;  but  an  humble  spirit,  such  a  one 
as  immolates  the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  the  inclination  of  the  heart  on  the 
altar  of  his  duty  to  his  God,  is  accepted  in  place  of  sacrifices,  for  the 
Psalmist  says  (Psalm  li.  17.):  «  The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit' " 
— (Sotah  5).  "This  is  the  way  of  the  wise,  to  be  humble  and  of  a  contrite 
spirit.  Be  like  the  bed  of  the  ocean,  which  retains  its  water ;  like  the 
earthen  vessel,  which  preserves  the  wine ;  like  the  threshold,  over  which 
every  one  steps ;  and  like  the  peg  on  the  wall,  which  everybody  hangs  his 
cloak  on" — (Masechet  Derech  Ei-ets  Zotah). 

Vez'se  4. — "  Blessed  are  they  that  mourn,  for  they  shall  he  comforted." 
More,  beautifully  is  this  sentence  expressed  by  the  Royal  David — "  They 
that  sow  in  tears,  shall  reap  in  joy" — (Psalm  cxxvi.  5.)  In.the  Talmud  (Abotli 
R.  Nathan,  ch.  28)  we  read  the  following  passage  : — "  Rabbi  Juda  Hanasi  says, 
*He  who  pursues  the  pleasures  of  this  world,  abandons  the  joy  of  the  world 
to  come ;  but  he,  who  resigns  earthly  enjoyments,  shall  partake  of  everlast- 
ing bliss  in  future  life.'  Among  the  forty-eight  qualifications  necessary  for 
the  student  of  the  holy  law,  and  for  the  acquiring  a  proficiency  in  the  same, 
is  the  S2>ontaneous  resignation  to  sufferings  and  chastisement" — (Ethics  6.) 
Another  sentence  of  the  Talmud  teaches  us  :  "  In  proportion  to  our  suflFerings 
in  this  world,  will  our  reward  be  in  the  world  to  come" — (Ibid.  5.) 


Ill 

Verse  5. — "'Blessed  are,  the  meek,  for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth." 
This  is  a  passage  in  the  Psalms :  "  The  meek  shall  inherit  the  earth" — 
(Psalms  xxxvii.  11.)  Who  can  be  called  a  disciple  of  the  patriarch  Abraham, 
and  who  a  disciple  of  the  wicked  Balaam?  "A  benevolent  eye,  humility  of 
spirit,  and  a  humble  mind,  characterise  the  disciples  of  Abraham ;  but  the 
disciples  of  the  wicked  Balaam  possess  an  evil  eye,  a  haughty  spirit,  and  an 
insatiable  mind.  The  first  shall  enjoy  the  fruit  of  their  labour  in  this  world, 
and  inherit  likewise  everlasting  bliss :  out  the  latter  shall  be  doomed  to 
Gehinnom,  and  go  down  into  the  pit  of  destruction" — (Eth.  5).  Four  reasons, 
says  the  Talmud,  can  be  assigned  for  the  declining  position  of  the  rich 
proprietor, — the  fourth  and  principal  reason  is,  for  being  haughty  and 
domineering,  but  the  meek  shall  continue  in  possession  of  their  estates  ;  for 
it  is  said,  "  The  meek  shall  possess  the  land." 

Verse  6.^"  Blessed  are  they  which  do  hungar  and  thirst  after  righteous- 
ness, for  they  shall  be  filled." 

"  Those  who  aspire  after  what  is  holy  and  pure,"  teaches  the  Talmud, 
"  shall  have  assistance  from  above" 

Verse  7. — Blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall  obtain  mercy. 
We  read  in  Psalms  xix.  17.,  "  He  that  hath  pity  upon  the  poor,  lendeth 
unto  the  Lord."  Rabbi  Chaya  enjoined  his  wife  to  meet  the  poor  who 
come  to  solicit  alms  on  the  way,  and  hand  them  over  to  them,  that  the  Lord 
might  anticipate  the  desires  of  her  children  and  fufill  them,  for  it  is  written, 
and  the  Lord  shall  bless  thee  for  it — (Deuteronomy  xv.  10.)  Rabbi  Gamliel 
said :  "  It  is  written  in  the  Bible  (Deuteronomy  xiii.  17),  '  The  Lord  shall 
give  thee  mercy,  and  shall  have  mercy  upon  thee.'  He  who  is  merciful 
towards  his  fellow  creatures,  shall  receive  mercy  from  heaven  above  ;  but  he 
who  is  unmerciful  towads  his  fellow-creatures,  shall  find  no  mercy  in  heaven" 
— (Shabbat  151  )  "  Let  thy  door  be  wide  open,  that  the  poor  may  become 
like  the  inmates  of  thy  house" — (Ethics  1.)  He  who  helpeth  the  poor  in  his 
troubles,  of  him  says  the  prophet  (Isaiah  Iviii.  9)  :  "  Thou  shalt  call,  and  the 
Lord  shall  answer"— (Mas;  Derech  Erets,  ch.  2). 

Verse  8. — "Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see  God." 
"  The  Psalmist  says:  'Truly,  God  is  good  to  Israel' — (Psalm  Ixxiii.  1.) 
Remember,  not  to  each,  and  every  one,  but  only  to  those  pure  in  heart" — 
(Jalkut  to  Psalms.)  "Preserve  thy  spirit  immaculate,  that  thou  mayest 
return  it  to  Him  who  gave  it,  in  its  purity,  as  He  has  given  it" — (Shabbat 
152.)  Be  diligent  in  practising  purity,  for  then  the  Lord,  in  His  purity,  will 
deal  with  thee  accordingly,  for  it  is  said:  "With  the  pure,  Thou  wilt  shew 
Thyself  pure"  (Nedarim  32.)  "  Rabbi  Elcazar  said, '  A  good  heart  is  the  best 
quality  a  man  can  possess  ;  and  there  is  none  so  bad  as  an  evil'heart' "  (Eth.  2). 
Verse  9. — "Blessed  are  the  peace-niakers ;  for  they  shall  be  called  the 
children  of  God." 

"  We  read  in  Ethics  1,  Hillel  said :  '  Be  of  the  disciples  of  Aaron  ;  love 
peace,  and  pursue  peace ;  love  mankind,  and  bring  them  near  unto  the  law.' 
Rabbi  Simeon  ben  Gamliel  said:  'The  moral  condition  of  the  world 
depends  on  three  things,  viz.,  truth,  justice,  and  peace' — (Ibid.)  Among  the 
various  laws,  the  observance  of  which  ensures  prosperity  on  earth,  and  a  full 
reward  in  heaven,  promoting  peace  among  men  is  reckoned" — (Peah  1). 
Practising  peace  and  promoting  it,  is  recommended  by  the  Talmud  as  one 
among  the  most  important  laws.  A  full  collection  of  all  the  Talmudical 
sentences  bearing  on  this  subject,  see  in  Jalkut  to  Parashath  Nasoh,  §  711. 

Verse  10. — "Blessed  are  they  which  are  persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake; 
Jbr  theirs  is  the  kingdom,  of  heaveti." 

Verse  11. — "Blessed  are  ye,  wJien  men  shall  revile  you,  and  persecute  you, 
and  shall  say  all  manner  of  evil  against  you  falsely,  for  my  sake." 


112 

The  Talmud  teaches :  "  Those  who  are  afflicted,  and  do  not  afflict  in 
return  ;  those  who  are  reviled,  and  do  not  revile  in  return ;  who  suffer 
everything  for  the  love  of  God,  and  bear  their  burden  with  a  gladsome  heart, 
will  be  rewarded  according  to  the  promise  :  '  Those  who  love  the  Lord  shall 
be  invincible  as  the  rising  sun  in  his  might,"  (Judges  v.  32.)  Vide  Shabbat 
8;  Gittin  36;  Yoma  23. 

Verse  13. — "  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth." 

The  divine  law  is  like  the  salt ;  for  as  the  woi'ld  cannot  exist  without 
salt,  so  it  cannot  exist  without  the  divine  law  (Mas.  Sopherim,  ch,  15). 

Verse  16. — "  Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men." 

The  men  of  the  great  Synod  taught : — "  Train  up  many  disciples, 
».  e.,  instruct  mankind"— (Ethics  1.)  The  Talmud,  in  another  place, 
has  the  following : — "  Whoso  undertaketh  to  instruct  mankind,  without 
the  necessary  qualifications,  of  him  it  is  said,  many  are  the  victims  he  has 
slain  ;  but  he  who,  though  fully  qualified,  abstains  from  promoting  knowledge 
and  instructing  mankind,  of  him  it  is  likewise  said,  Many  are  also  his  victims* 
(Prov.  vii.  26;  19).  "He  who,  by  his  precepts,  leads  mankind  to  virtue, 
will  himself  abstain  from  sin  and  increase  in  virtue ;  yea,  the  virtue  of  the 
public  will  be  attributed  to  him,  as  we  find  it  recorded  of  Moses" — (Ethics  5). 

Verse  22. — "  But  I  say  unto  you.  That  whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother 
without  a  cause,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment ;  and  whosoever  shall  say  to 
his  brother,  Raca,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  Council ;  hut  whosoever  shall  gay. 
Thou  fool,  shall  be  in  danger  of  hell  fire." 

The  injunctions  of  the  Talmud  on  this  head  are  as  follow :  "  Rabbi  Simeon 
says.  Whosoever  lifts  up  his  hand  against  his  neighbour,  although  he  do 
not  strike  him,  is  called  an  oftender  and  sinnei-" — (Sanh.  58).  "  He  who 
calls  his  fellow-man  slave,  bastard,  or  villain,  endangers  his  own  life" — 
(Kidushin  28).  "He  who  publicly  exposes  his  neighbom-  to  shame,  has  no 
share  in  the  future  world" — (B.  Meziah  58,  and  Eth.  3). 

Verse  24. — "Leave  thy  gift  before  the  altar,  and  go  thy  way;  firtt  he 
reconciled  to  thy  brother,  and  then  come  and  offer  thy  gift." 

The  Talmud  teaches,  "  Sins  committed  against  God,  true  repentance  on 
the  day  of  atonement,  can  procure  remittance  for ;  but  sins  committed 
against  our  feJIow-creatures,  neither  repentance  nor  the  day  of  atonement 
can  purge  away,  if  amends  have  not  been  previously  made,  and  the  injured 
brother  appeased" — (Yoma  85).  "  Whoso  restores  what  he  has  stolen  before 
he  offers  his  trespass-offering,  is  absolved  from  his  guilt ;  but  a  trespass- 
offering,  without  restoration,  does  not  clear  from  sin" — (R.  Kama  106). 

Verse  25. — s"  Agree  with  thins  adversary  quickly." 

^ "  If  thou  hast  done  harm  to  any  one,"  teaches  the  Talmud,  "  be  it  ever 
so  little,  consider  it  as  much ;  if  thou  hast  done  him  a  favour,  be  it  ever  so 
great,  consider  it  as  little.  Has  thy  neighbour  shewn  thee  kindness,  do  not 
undervalue  it ;  and  has  he  caused  thee  an  injury,  do  not  overrate  it  (Abot 
B.  Nathan,  ch.  41).  Have  others  calumniated  thee,  be  it  ever  so  much, 
deem  it  lightly ;  hast  thou  calumniated  others,  if  ever  so  slightly,  consider  it 
much"— (Mas.  Derech  Erets  Zotah). 

Verse  28. — "  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  whosoever  looketh  on  a  woman  to 
lust  after  her,  has  committed  adultery  ivith  her  already  in  his  heart." 

Similar  to  this  are  the  following  sentences :  "  We  must  not  follow  a 
married  woman  on  her  way ;  but  whoso  follows  a  married  woman  when  she 
crosses  a  river,  endangers  his  future  happiness.  He  who  tendereth  money 
to  a  woman,  in  order  to  satisfy  his  lustful  desires  with  her,  will  not  escape 
the  doom  of  Gehinnon"  (Berachot  61.)  "Whoso  looketh  upon  the  wife  of 
another  with  a  lustful  eye  is  considered  as  if  he  had  committed  adultery" 
(Mas.  Calah.) 


113 

Verse  32. — "  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
saving  for  the  cause  of  fornicatio'n,  causeth  her  to  commit  adultery:  and  who- 
soever  shall  marry  Iter  that  is  divorced,  committeth  adultery." 

There  was  a  controversy  at  issue  between  the  school  of  Shamai  and  the 
school  of  Hillel:  the  first  maintained,  that  a  divorce  can  only  take  place 
when  an  actual  breach  of  matrimonial  faith,  proved  by  witnesses,  has  been 
committed ;  but  the  latter  considered  moral  faithlessness  a  sufficient  cause 
to  sanction  a  divorce.  "  He  who  divorces  his  first  wife,"  teaches  the  Talmud, 
"  even  the  altar  of  the  Lord  sheddeth  tears  on  such  doings.  And  to  him 
who  marries  a  woman  that  has  been  divorced,  can  the  passage  be  ap- 
plied, '  And  the  second  husband  dies ;'  and  he  is  worthy  of  death,  for  he 
admits  the  evil  into  his  house  which  the  fii'st  husband  has  put  away" — 
(Gittin  90). 

Verse  34. — "  But  I  say  unto  you,  Swear  not  at  all." 

A  Talmudical  sentence  is  pronounced  in  Toor,  Orach  Chayim,  Sec.  156, 
that  even  a  true  oath  must  be  avoided  as  sinful. 

Verse  37. — "But  let  your  com,m,unication  be.  Yea,  yea;  Nay,  nay." 

The  sanctity  and  inviolability  of  the  oath  is  emphatically  and  repeatedly 
enjoined  by  the  Talmud,  and  we  adduce  the  following  instance  from  Shebuotn 
39:  "The  whole  universe  shook  and  trembled  when  God  pronounced  on 
Sinai,  *  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain.'  The 
punishment  of  other  sins  remains  sometimes  suspended  ;  but  on  perjury  the 
punishment  follows  immediately,  for  "  the  Lord  will  not  let  him  go  unpunished 
who  taketh  his  name  in  vain."  All  other  oflPences  are  visited  on  him  alone 
who  has  committed  them ;  but  he  who  forswears  himself,  loadeth  guilt  and 
punishment  upon  his  own  head,  and  the  heads  of  those  who  belong  to  him ; 
yea,  the  punishment  of  his  crime  is  so  terrible,  that  it  destroys  all  that 
withstood  the  elementary  ravages  of  fire  and  water."  "  Ferocious  animals 
overrun  the  world  on  account  of  false-swearing"  (Eth.  5.)  Rabbi  Joshua 
said,  "Let  thy  *  Yea'  be  just,  and  thy,  '  Nay*  be  likewise  just."  With  regard 
to  the  introductory  prayer  of  "  Kol  Nidre,"  read  on  the  eve  of  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  and  which  is  erroneously  taken  hold  of  and  malignantly  perverted 
into  an  attack  upon  the  Jews  by  the  revilers  of  Judaism,  and  represented  as 
an  absolution  from  all  oaths  taken  in  the  past  year,  I  have  proved*  that  this 
prayer  bears  only  on  self-imposed  vows  and  personal  abnegations,  but  in  no 
wise  absolves  from  an  oath  taken  in  a  court  of  justice. 

He  who  is  faithless  in  performing  what  he  has  promised,  is  compared  to 
an  idolator  (Mas.  Kalah). 

Verse  38. — "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said.  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a 
tooth  for  a  tooth." 

This  Biblical  passage,  the  Talmud  explains  in  a  milder  and  more  con- 
genial manner,  and  more  in  accordance  with  the  character  of  the  divine 
lawgiver.  "  Eye  for  eye  ;"  this  phrase  cannot  be  taken  in  its  literal  sense, 
for  then  it  would  not  meet  the  exigencies  of  every  case  ;  besides,  its  execu- 
tion in  every  case  would  not  be  even-handed  justice.  Suppose  a  blind  man, 
or  a  man  blind  of  one  eye,  has  knocked  out  the  eye  of  another ;  in  the  first 
case,  the  law  as  it  stands,  in  its  literal  meaning,  could  not  be  carried  out  at 
all ;  and,  in  the  second,  its  application  would  inflict  a  punishment  that  would 
deprive  the  offender  of  his  sight  altogether.  It  can,  therefore,  only  amerce 
a  fine,  to  be  awarded  to  the  injured  party  as  a  compensation.  Hezekiah 
said,  "  It  is  said,  '  Eye  for  eye,'  but  not  '  eye  and  life  for  eye  ;'  and  it  could 
come  to  pass,  that  by  depriving  the  offender  of  his  eye,  thou  couldest  endanger 
his  life" — (B.  K.  84).     To  take  this  sentence  in  its  literal  sense,  would  be  to 

*  Vide  my  work,  "  Rabbinical  Desideratum,"  Vienna,  1845,  p.  81. 
o 


114 

engraft  the  adage,  "  The  htUr  of  the  law  kills,"  upon  tho  Bible.  Only 
the  Sadducees,  who  did  not  recognise  the  tradition,  explained  this  law 
literally.* 

Verse  39. — "  Whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  tha 
other  also." 

This  is  Scriptural  phraseology.  "  I  gave  my  back  to  the  smiters,  and 
my  cheeks  to  them  that  plucked  off  the  haix'"  (Isaiah  1.6.)  "He  giveth  his 
cheek  to  him  that  smiteth  him ;  he  is  filled  full  with  reproach"  (Lamenta- 
tions iii.  30.) 

Verse  42. — "  Oive  to  him  that  asketh  thee,  and  from  him  that  would  borrow 
of  thee,  turn  not  thou  away." 

"  There  are  ten  things,"  says  the  Talmud,  "  the  one  stronger  than  tho 
other.  Strong  is  tho  rock,  but  iron  cleaves  it  asunder ;  strong  is  the  iron, 
but  fire  melts  it ;  strong  is  tho  fire,  but  water  quenches  it ;  strong  is  the 
water,  but  the  clouds  support  it ;  strong  are  the  clouds,  but  tho  wind  dispels 
them;  strong  is  the  wind,  but  the  human  body  masters  it;  strong  is  the 
body,  but  grief  bends  it;  strong  is  grief,  but  wine  conquers  it ;  strong  is  the 
wine,  but  sleep  overpowers  it :  the  strongest  of  them  all,  however,  is  death ; 
but  stronger  than  the  strongest  of  them  is  alms-giving,  for  it  is  said,  ♦  Alms 
deliver  from  death' "  (Baba  Bathra  10.)  "  Three  friends  man  has  in  his  life  : 
wealth  is  the  first,  family  is  the  name  of  the  second,  and  his  good  actions 
are  the  third  friend.  When  the  hour  of  death  approaches,  man  calls  in  all 
his  friends  to  deliver  him  from  all-conquering  death.  He  calls  upon  his 
wealth  to  ransom  him,  but  he  receives  the  answer,  '  Wealth  avails  nothing  in 
the  day  of  wrath'  (Prov.  x.  2).  He  then  appeals  to  his  family ;  they  promise 
to  accompany  him  to  the  grave,  but  not  beyond  it,  'for  none  of  them  can  by 
any  means  redeem  his  brother'  (Psalms  xlix.  7.)  At  last  he  turns  to  his 
good  actions,  that  they  may  give  him  a  safe  conduct ;  they  readily  respond, 
*  Even  before  thou  hast  asked  us,  we  have  preceded  thee,  and  have  smoothed 
thy  way ;'  as  it  is  said  '  Thy  righteousness  shall  go  before  thee'  flsaiah  Iviii. 
8):  and  in  another  place,  'Righteousness  delivers  from  death'  '  (Medrash 
Yalkut  to  Psalms  Ixxxv.  §  834). 

Verse  43. — "Ye  have  heard  that  it  has  been  said,  Hum  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bour and  hate  thine  enemy." 

«  It  has  been  said"  !  Where  ?  Where,  indeed  is  this  precept  to  be  found  ? 
The  second  part  of  this  verse,  even  after  the  lapse  of  eighteen  centuries,  still 
remains  unproved.  The  Holy  Bible  does  not  contain  anywhere  an  injunction 
to  hate  our  enemies ;  and  from  the  Talmud  we  shall  adduce  several  sentences 
where  hatred  against  mankind,  without  distinction,  is  described  as  hateful  to 
God  and  derogatoiy  to  morality.  "  Rejoice  not  when  thine  enemy  falleth, 
and  let  not  thine  heart  be  glad  when  he  stumbleth ;  lest  the  Lord  should 
see  it,  and  it  be  evil  in  His  sight,  and  turn  His  wi-ath  from  him  tipo7i  thee" 
(Ethics  5).     Has  it  here  been  said,  " Hate  thine  enemy?" 

"  Who  can  deservedly  be  called  a  conqueror  ?  He  who  conquers  his 
rancorous  passions,  and  endeavours  to  tm-n  his  enemy  into  a  friend" — (Aboth 
R.  Nathan,  ch.  23).     Are  we  here  commanded  to  hate  our  enemies? 

"  Rabbi  Joshua  said,  'An  evil  eye,  evil  passions,  and  hatred  against  man- 
kind,'*' drive  men  out  of  the  world.'  What  is  called  misanthropy  ?  Thou 
shalt  not  say,  'I  will  love  the  wise,  but  the  unwise  I  will  hate;'  but  thou 
shalt  love  all  mankind  alike"— (Ibid.   16).     "  God  would  not   destroy  the 

*  The  "  pound  of  flesh"  of  the  "Merchant  of  Venice"  would  side  well  with  a  law 
of  this  kind. 

f  Sinhat  Haberioth.  The  wording  of  this  sentence  leaves  no  room  for  any 
stickler  for  quibbling. — Teanslatok. 


115 

generation  who  presumed  to  build  the  tower  of  Babel,  because  they  prac- 
tised charity  towards  each  other;  he  dispersed  them  over  the  face  of  the 
whole  earth ;  but  the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  were  utterly 
destroyed,  because  of  their  enmity  and  hatred  among  themselves" — (Ibid.  12). 
"  '  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  ;'  even  if  he  be  a  criminal,  and  has  forfeited 
his  life ;  practise  charity  towards  him  in  the  last  moments,  when  he  suffers 
the  extreme  penalty  of  the  law,  and  let  his  death  be  instantaneous,  and  the 
least  revolting  to  humanity" — (Pesachim  75;  Chetuboth  37;  Sotah  8;  B. 
Kamah  51 ;  Sanh.  45,  52,  84). 

When  a  certain  heathen  expressed  his  desire  to  Hillel  to  embrace 
Judaism,  but  under  the  condition  that  he  should  teach  him  the  whole  law 
•while  he  stood  upon  one  leg,  Hillel  taught  him,  "  What  thou  Avouldest  not 
like  to  be  done  to  you,  do  not  to  others ;  this  is  the  fundamental  law" 
(Shabbat  31).  Rabbi  Akiba  said,  "Love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself;  this  is  a 
fundamental  law  in  the  Bible"  (Talm.  Jer.  Nedarim  10). 

"  Let  the  honor  of  thy  fellow-man  be  as  dear  to  these  as  thine  own  ;  be 
as  careful  with  his  property  as  with  thine  own.  He  who  practises  the  law 
with  sincerity,  loves  God,  and  loves  mankind  ;  he  rejoiceth  the  Creator,  and 
rejoiceth  His  creatui-es.  True  charity  and  love  for  mankind,  must,  in  order 
to  brave  every  vicissitude  of  life,  be  free  from  all  worldly  considerations, 
like  the  love  Jonathan  bore  David"  (Ethics  2,  6,  6). 

We  have,  moreover,  to  meet  and  refute  a  misconceived  and  erroneous 
idea.  We  have  been  charged  with  possessing  a  national  God,  and  arrogating 
to  ourselves  the  Creator  exclusively  as  our  God,  and  ourselves  as  his  exclu- 
sive creatures.  This  is  flatly  contradicted  by  the  Talmud  in  the  following 
sentence  :  "  Rabbi  Joshua  said.  When  any  one  hears  blasphemy,  whether  by 
a  Jew  or  a  non-Jew,  he  is  obliged  to  rend  his  garment ;  for  it  is  said,  ♦  The 
Eternal  is  the  God  of  all  flesh'  (Jeremiah  xxxii.  27),  and  also  the  God  of  the 
heathen"  (Talm.  Jer.,  Moed  Katan  ch.  3). 

Verse  44. — "  But  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse 
you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  pray  for  them,  which  despitefidly  use  you  and 
persecute  you." 

A  Scriptural  passage  runs  as  follows  :  "  If  thine  enemy  be  hungry,  give 
him  bread  to  eat ;  and  if  he  be  thirsty,  give  him  water  to  drink.  For  thou 
heapest  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head,  and  the  Lord  shall  reward  thee"  (Pror. 
XXV.  21).  "If  any  one  striketh  or  woundeth  thee,  pray  for  grace  and  com- 
passion for  the  aggressor,  even  if  he  should  not  ask  it  of  thee.  Thus  did 
Abraham,  who  prayed  for  Abimelech  (Gen.  xx.  17)  ;  and  thus  God  restored 
unto  Job  all  his  lost  possessions,  because  he  prayed  for  his  assailants  (Job 
xlii.  10).  Rabbi  Juda  said.  It  is  written,  *  The  Lord  will  give  thee  mercy, 
and  have  mercy  upon  thee ;'  let  this  be  thy  guide  in  life :  if  thou  dealest 
mercifully  with  thy  fellow-creatures,  the  All-merciful  will  have  mercy  on 
thee"  (B.  Kama  9.  Tosephta). 

Verse  45. — "  That  ye  may  he  the  children  of  your  father  that  is  in  heaven ; 
for  he  maketh  the  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good." 

The  Talmud  teaches  us  not  to  curse  our  enemies,  for  it  is  said,  «  God  is 
merciful  to  all  his  creatures"  (Psalms  cxlv.  9) ;  and  in  another  place  it  is 
written,  "  It  does  not  beseem  the  lughteous  to  invoke  punishment"  (Berach. 
7).  Once  when  Rabbi  Meyer  gave  vent  to  his  anger  against  a  malicious 
neighbour  who  had  continually  provoked  him,  his  wife  gently  rebuked  him 
and  said,  "  It  is  not  written  in  Scripture,  let  the  sinners,  but  sin,  vanish  from 
the  earth,  and  then  there  will  be  no  more  sinners.  Pray  not  for  the  down- 
fall of  the  sinner,  but  for  his  reclamation,  that  he  may  become  penitent  and 
repenting."  And  Rabbi  Meyer  followed  the  virtuous  admonition  of  his  wife 
(Berachoth  10). 


116 

Vorse  48. — "  Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  as  your  father  which  is  in  heaven  is 
perfect." 

This  is  a  passage  in  the  Bible  (Leviticus  xi.  44 ;  xix.  2).  The  Talmud 
has  the  following  :  "'Ye  shall  walk  after  the  Lord  your  Ood'  (Deut.  xiii.  4). 
How  can  man  walk  after  the  Lord,  of  whom  it  is  written,  '  Ho  is  a  consuming 
fire  ?'  But  walk  after  and  imitate  Him  in  His  goodness.  Be  towards  thy 
fellow-creatures  as  He  is  towards  the  whole  creation.  God  clotheth  the 
naked,  endeavour  to  do  likewise  ;  He  hoaleth  the  sick,  be  a  nursing-brother 
to  the  children  of  thy  Father ;  Ho  comforteth  those  whe  are  afflicted,  go  and 
do  lihewise"  (Sotah  14). 

MATTHEW,  CHAPTER  VI. 

This  chapter  is  contra-distinguished  from  the  preceding  one,  inasmuch 
as  it  contains  no  positive  command,  but  its  injunctions  are  more  of  a 
negative  nature — omissions.  It  can  be  divided  into  parts :  the  first  from 
Terse  1  to  verse  19,  and  the  second  from  verse  19  to  the  end  of  the  chapter. 
And  while  the  first  part  alludes  to  moral  laws,  such  as  alms-giving,  prayer, 
and  fasting,  the  efficacy  of  which  is  here,  though  silently,  acknowledged,  and 
the  many  selfish  purposes  only  for  which  they  are  employed,  condemned — 
still  something  positive,  though  indirectly  expressed — the  second  part,  with 
the  exception  of  the  20th  and  33rd  verses,  contains  nothing  but  negations. 
The  first  part,  which  we  shall  call  the  positive-negative,  can  again  be  subdi- 
vided into  three  sections  :  from  verses  1  to  5,  treating  on  alms  ;  from  5  to  16, 
on  prayers  ;  and  from  thence  to  verse  19,  on  fasting. 

The  Talmud  has  already  noticed  these  three  things  as  particularly  meri- 
torious, and  recommended  them  as  tending  to  the  eternal  salvation  of  man ; 
and  we.  instance  here  the  following  passage :  Rabbi  Eliezer  says,  "  Three 
things  there  are  which  can  arrest  the  impending  evil,  and  turn  it  into  good, 
viz.,  prayer,  alms,  and  fasting"  (Taanith,  Jer.,  sect.  ii.  p.  65  6,  ed.  Cracow). 
The  Koran  teaches  likewise  :  "  Prayers  lead  us  half  way  towards  God ;  fasting, 
to  the  door  of  his  mansion ;  and  alms  open  its  portals." 

We  will  now,  verse  by  verse,  consider  these  three  subdivisions,  and 
compare  them  with  corresponding  passages  in  the  Talmud.  As  touching 
alms-giving,  which  the  first  five  verses  treat  of,  we  must  here  remark,  that 
the  Hebrew  word  Tsedakah  and  the  radix  Chak  in  Arabic,  both  of  which  denote 
in  their  respective  languages,  works  of  charity  and  benevolence,  do  not,  like 
the  eleemosune  in  the  Gospel,  express  a  gift  which  pity  and  commiseration 
exact,  but  an  assistance  which  of  right  belongs  to  the  poor,  to  which  they 
have  a  rightful  claim,  which  is  their  own. 

This  appellation  of  the  virtue  of  benevolence  must,  in  the  adaptation  of 
the  word,  convey  to  us  the  high  importance  which  the  Old  Testament 
attaches  to  this  virtue ;  and  we  must  find  it  in  consonance  with  this  view- 
when  wo  read  in  the  Talmud  of  laws  which  enforce  the  distribution  ot  alms ; 
■while  in  a  Christian  state,  founded  on  the  principle  of  right,  this  virtue  is 
enjoined  as  a  duty  for  conscience'  sake,  and  must  therefore  be  rendered 
voluntary,  and  cannot  be  compulsory.  Thus  the  Talmud  teaches,  that  alms 
can  be  levied  from  the  wealthy  by  means  of  execution,  and  that  Rabba 
compelled  a  certain  Romi  to  distribute  a  sum  of  four  hundred  pieces  of 
money  among  the  poor  (Baba  Bathra,  p.  86).  The  following  narrative 
conveys  as  much  instruction  as  it  is  aflfecting :  Rabbi  Tarphon  was  exceedingly 
wealthy,  but  did  not  share  his  riches  with  the  poor  in  proportion  to  his 
wealth.  One  day,  his  disciple,  Rabbi  Akiba,  so  justly  celebrated  in  after  life, 
came  to  him,  and  said,  "  Master,  I  can  purchase  a  whole  town  at  a  very  low 
price ;  ehali  I  conclude  the  bargain  for  you  ?"    Rabbi  Tarphon  expressed  hi» 


117 

consent,  and  handed  over  to  him  several  thousand  pieces  of  gold,  which  his 
disciple,  however,  distributed  forthwith  among  the  poor.  A  little  while 
after.  Rabbi  Tarphon  inquired  of  his  obliging  pupil  after  the  purchased  city. 
The  latter  took  him  to  the  "  Beth  Hamidrash''  (college),  opened  the  sacred 
Tolume,  and  read  to  him  the  following  passage  from  Psalms  :   "  He  hath  dis- 

Eersed,  he  hath  given  to  the  poor ;  his  righteousness  endureth  for  ever,  and  his 
orn  shall  be  exalted  with  honour"  (cxii.  9).  "  These  are  the  cities,"  added 
the  pupil,  "  which  I  have  purchased  for  you."  Rabbi  Tarphon  kissed  him,  and 
exclaimed,  "  Thou  art  my  master  in  wisdom,  and  my  friend  in  virtue ;"  and 
gave  him  still  larger  sums  to  distribute  among  the  poor.  The  Talmud  tells 
of  Rabbi  Tarphon,  that  he  was  a  very  benevolent  man,  but  he  did  not  give 
in  proportion  to  his  wealth ;  and  the  proverb  says,  "  according  to  his  strength 
the  camel  must  bear  the  burden,  even  against  his  will"  (Treatise  Kallah,  26). 
Verse  1. — "  Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your  alms  before  men,  to  be  seen  of 

The  injunctions  of  the  Talmud  run  as  follow :  "  God  shall  bring  every 
work  of  man  unto  judgment,  whether  it  be  good  or  whether  it  be  evil"  (Eccl. 
xii.  14) ;  which  means,  when  man  gives  alms  to  the  poor  in  the  presence  of 
others.  Thus  said  Rabbi  Yanai,  to  a  man  who  gave  alms  in  such  a  public 
manner :  '  You  had  better  not  have  given  him  anything ;  in  the  way  you 
gave  it  him,  you  must  have  hurt  his  feelings'  "  (Hagiga,  p.  6,  a). 

He  who  gives  alms  in  secret  stands  higher  than  Moses.  Of  the  latter  it 
is  written,  that  he  was  afraid  of  the  anger  of  the  Lord ;  while  it  is  said  of 
the  first  (Prov.  xxi.  24),  "  Secret  alms  pacify  anger"  (B.  Bathra,  p.  9,  6). 

In  the  neighbourhood  of  Mar  Hukba,  there  lived  a  poor  man,  who  would 
not  accept  alms.  The  benevolent  Rabbi  placed  every  day  money  at  the 
door  of  his  indigent  but  bashful  neighbour,  and  hurried  away.  The  poor 
man,  who  received  alms  in  so  unostentatious  and  magnanimous  a  manner, 
was  curious  to  know  his  benefactor.  He  waited  behind  the  door,  and  as 
Boon  as  he  heard  the  sound  of  approaching  footsteps,  he  tried  to  open  it. 
The  Rabbi,  guessing  the  reason,  hastened  away,  and  in  his  hurry  ran  into  a 
smith's  forge,  in  order  to  avoid  being  known.  "  It  is  better,"  said  he,  after 
he  had  thus  concealed  himself,  "  to  take  refuge  in  a  smith's  forge,  than  to 
call  forth  a  blush  of  shame  on  the  face  of  the  poor"  (Ketuboth,  p.  67,  6). 
Rabbi  Abba  tied  money  in  his  handkerchief,  and  dropped  it  intentionally 
when  he  passed  a  poor  man,  but  took  care  that  none  others  picked  it  up 
(Ibid.).  Rabbi  Yonah  had  recourse  to  an  innocent  stratagem  when  he  met 
with  a  man  who  had  bean  reduced  from  affluence  to  poverty,  in  order  to 
make  him  accept  his  assistance.  "  My  friend,"  he  would  then  say,  "  I  have 
certain  information  that  you  may  expect  a  large  inheritance  from  a  relative 
in  a  distant  land  ("  Mengeber  Layam").  I  lend  you  now  this  sum,  which  you 
can  then  repay  me,  and  will  besides  be  enabled  to  return  me  this  trifling 
service"  [Shekalim,  Jer.  49,  ed.  Cr.]. 

Verse  2. — "  Therefore,  when  thou  dost  thine  alms,  do  not  sound  a  trumpet 
before  thee,  as  the  hypocrites  do  in  the  synagogues  and  in  the  streets,  that  they  may 
have  glory  of  men.     Verily  I  say  unto  you.  They  have  their  reward.'^ 

The  Talmud,  which  expounds  every  thing  by  the  rule  of  exegesis,  has 
preserved  us  a  very  ingenuous  illustration  of  the  names  and  shape  of  tho 
Hebrew  alphabet.  Gimel,  Daleth,  (the  third  and  fourth  letters)  initially  mean 
"  Gomel  Dalim"  (be  benevolent  to  the  poor).  But  why  does  the  Daleth 
turn  its  back  upon  the  Gimel  ?  To  convey  a  lesson  to  the  benevolent  to  give 
his  alms  secretly,  and  not  to  hurt  tho  feelings  of  the  poor  (Sabb.,  p.  104). 
*♦  What  good  soever  thou  doest,  do  it  for  the  sake  of  thy  Maker,  boast  not  of 
it  to  thine  own  glory"  (Nedarim  62).  "  Study  not  the  law,  that  thou  mayest  be 
•ftlled  a  wise  man,  a  Rabbi,  and  a  teacher,  but  study  for  love  of  the  law  (Ibid). 


118 

Verso  3. — "  But  when  tliou  doest  alms,  let  not  thy  left  hand  know  what  thy 
right  hand  doeth." 

A  similar  passage  occurs  in  the  Talmud,  but  more  striking  for  the  logic 
it  contains.  "  It  is  said,  '  One  hand  cannot  expiate  the  wrong  of  the  other,* 
(Prov.  xi.  21),  meaning,  so  man  practises  with  one  hand  virtues  of  humanity, 
and  holds  forth  the  other  to  receive  their  rewai'd,  making  it  matter  of  traffic, 
where  the  article  is  delivered  with  ono  hand,  and  the  price  received  with  the 
other;  such  a  man  will  not  go  unpunished.  Kabbi  Johanan  said:  "God 
has  given  man  two  hands,  to  dispense  benevolence  with  both  of  them  ;  but 
whoso  giveth  alms  with  his  right  hand,  and  steals  with  his  left,  his  right  hand 
cannot  change  his  left  from  the  evil  it  has  committed"  (Yalkut  to  Prov.). 

Verse  4. — "  That  thiiie  alms  may  he  in  secret,  and  thy  Father  who  seeth  m 
secret  himself  shall  reward  tliee  openly." 

"  What  thou  hast  done  secretly,"  said  the  prophet  to  King  David  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  "  I  will  bring  openly  before  all  Israel,  and  before  the  light 
of  the  sun"  (2  Sam.  xii.  12.)  Rabbi  Benjamin  said,  "What  is  the  meaning 
of  the  passage  :  'H  man  hides  himself  in  secret,  should  I  not  see  him'  [Jer. 
xxiii.  24]?"  If  man  devotes  his  life  to  the  study  of  the  law,  and  the  practice 
of  its  precepts,  or  of  virtue  in  secret,  the  Lord  will  bring  it  to  light,  and 
likewise  when  man  sins  in  secret.  An  architect  once  built  a  city  with  many 
subterranean  passages  and  secret  caverns.  When  he  came  to  collect  his 
rent,  the  inhabitants  refused  to  pay,  and  hid  all  their  valuables  in  these 
secret  places  ;  "  Fools,"  exclaimed  the  landlord,  "  you  mean  to  conceal  your 
treasures  in  the  secret  vaults  from  me  who  have  huilt  the  city,  and  known 
every  hiding  place  in  it  above  and  below  ground  ?"  In  like  manner  said  the 
Lord  :  "  I,  who  have  formed  all  their  hearts,  know  also  all  their  thoughts" 
(Yalkut  to  Jer.  23,  sec.  305). 

The  following  verses,  from  5  to  16,  refer  to  prayer.  The  Talmud 
recommends  prayer  as  meritorious,  and  we  quote  the  following  instances. — 
What  means  the  passage :  "  Ye  shall  not  eat  on  the  blood"  (Lev.  xix.  29)  ? 
It  means  :  "  Eat  nothing,  before  you  have  given  thanks  to  the  Creator  for 
your  blood"  [life]  (Berachoth  10).  "  He  who  salutes  his  neighbour,  early  in 
the  morning,  before  he  has  addressed  his  prayer  to  his  Maker,  commits 
idolatry  with  man"  (Ibid,  p.  14).  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Talmud  con- 
siders it  essentially  necessary,  that  a  prayer,  addressed  to  the  Almighty, 
must  be  accompanied  by  purity  of  heart,  and  devotion  of  the  mind. — 
"  Prayer,  without  devotion,  is  like  a  body  without  soul,"  is  the  pithy 
sentence  of  the  Talmud.  "He,  who  is  engaged  in  prayer,  shall  turn 
his  eyes  to  the  ground,  but  raise  his  heart  to  heaven"  (Yebamoth,  p. 
108).  "  God  is  nigh  unto  all  them  that  call  upon  him"  (Psalms  cxlv.  18). 
Think  not  that  God  is  nigh  unto  all  that  merely  call  upon  him,  for  our  verse 
adds,  "only  to  those  who  will  call  upon  him  in  truth"  (Yalkut  to  Psalms). 
•'My  prayer  is  pure,"  said  Job  (xvi.  17) ;  but  whose  prayer  is  not  pure  ? 
"  His,  whose  hands  are  defiled  by  injustice."     (Shemoth  Rabba,  Parasha  22). 

Moreover,  the  Talmud  is  far  from  advocating  the  life  of  a  recluse, 
devoting  all  time  and  energy  to  life-long  prayers,  and  does  not  consider  a 
life  of  seclusion  frittered  away  in  visionai'y  enthusiasm  and  unprofitable 
reverie  as  meritorious  ;  and  we  turn  to  the  following  passage  in  Menachoth, 
p.  996,  Siphri,  in  support  of  our  assertion  :  It  is  said,  "  This  book  of  the  law 
shall  not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth,  but  thou  shalt  meditate  therein  day  and 
night"  (Joshua  i.  8)  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are  commanded  to  work  six 
days,  and  to  rest  on  the  seventh.  To  reconcile  these  two  conflicting  injunc- 
tions, our  sages  have  ordained,  that  we  shall  say  morning  and  evening  the 
prayer  "  Shemang,"  which  shall  be  considered,  equivalent  to  the  study  of 
the  law. 


119 

Verse  5. — "And  when  thou  prayest,  thou  shalt  not  be  as  the  hypocrites  are^ 
for  they  love  to  pray  standing  in  the  synagogues." 

True,  the  Talmud  prefers  and  recommends  congregational  prayers  in 
the  Temple,  because  it  gives  more  solemnity  to  Divine  service,  and  stimulates 
the  souls  of  the  congregants  to  devotion,  while  private  prayers  within  the 
retirement  of  our  four  walls,  where  we  are  suiTounded  by  the  busy  life  of 
family  concerns,  must  necessarily  lack  that  elevation  of  soul,  without  which 
prayers  are  only  lip-devotion.  "  I  address  my  prayer  to  Thee,  O  Lord,  in  an 
acceptable  time"  (Psalms  Ixix.  13).  Which  time  can  then  be  considered  as 
such  ? — "  The  time  when  a  whole  congregation  prays  to  God  (Berachot  ch.  8). 
But  with  whom  the  right  is,  practice  has  decided  long  ago,  and  Christianity, 
in  erecting  churches  for  public  worship,  has  swerved  from  the  injunctions  of 
its  Master. 

Verse  6. — "  But  when  thou  prayest,  enter  into  thy  closet,  and  when  thou  hast 
shut  thy  door,  pray  to  thy  Father  which  is  in  secret ;  and  thy  Father  which  seeth 
in  secret  shall  reward  thee  openly." 

The  Talmud  likewise  teaches,  that  home  devotion  is  acceptable  to  God. 
Man  ought  to  address  his  prayer  to  God  in  the  temple ;  if  there  is  no  temple 
in  the  place  where  he  resides,  let  him  pray  at  home.  If  he  is  from  home,  he 
may  pray  in  the  field ;  and  if  there  he  be  prevented  from  doing  so,  let  him 
offer  up  a  mental  prayer  (Pesikte  Yalkut  to  Psalms,  ch.  4). 

Verse  7. — "But  when  ye  pray,  use  not  vain  repetitions,  as  the  heathen  do." 

The  Talmud  pronounces  the  following  axiom :  "  Whatever  man  per- 
forms, whether  it  be  much  or  little,  let  it  be  with  a  pure  heart  for  the  glory 
of  God"  (Menach.  110  ;  Berachoth  17).  A  disciple  read  prayers  publicly  in 
the  presence  of  Rabbi  Eliezer.  His  prayer  was  devout,  but  short.  The 
other  pupils  who  attended  were  displeased  thereat,  and  complained  to  the 
Babbi,  who  sided  with  the  disciple,  by  remarking  that  his  prayer  lasted  still 
as  long  as  that  which  Moses  uttered  for  Miriam,  when  he  prayed,  "  Heal  her 
now,  O  God,  I  beseech  thee"  (Berachoth,  p.  34).  In  his  prayer,  man  ought 
not  to  introduce  too  many  praises  of  God,  for  it  is  said,  "  Silence  is  praise 
unto  Thee ;"  and  the  Talmud  proverbially  says,  "  If  speaking  is  worth  a 
gelang  [a  coin  of  Talmudical  standard],  silence  is  worth  two"  (Megillah,  p.  18). 
*♦  As  excessive  praises  cannot  enhance  the  value  of  the  diamond,  so  too  many 
praises  cannot  add  to  the  glory  of  God"  [Jer.  Ber.  sect.  9,  p.  12,  ed.  Cr.) 

Verse  8. — "  Your  father  knoxveth  what  things  ye  have  need  of." 

King  Solomon  reared  up  the  temple,  that  every  one  who  was  afflicted, 
might  address  his  prayer  to  God,  and  invoke  his  heavenly  aid.  But  if  his 
supplication  should  ask  of  God  anything  that  would  be  hurtful  to  him,  in 
that  case  it  is  said,  "  Thou,  O  Lord,  knowest  the  heart :"  grant  him  only 
that  which  Thou  in  Thy  wisdom  knowest  would  be  best  for  his  good,  and 
nothing  more"  (Treat.  Semachoth,  sect.  6). 

Verse  9. — "  Our  father,  who  art  in  heaven,  hallowed  be  thy  name." 

This  is  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  typical-prayer,  but  is  origin- 
ally taken  from  pre-existing  Jewish  prayers,  which  are  still  preserved  in  our 
liturgy.  Thus,  every  Jew,  in  his  daily  morning  prayer,  says,  "  Sanctify  Thy 
name,  O  Lord,  in  Thy  world;"  and  in  his  evening  prayer  he  repeats,  "Our 
Father,  who  art  in  heaven,  proclaim  the  unity  of  Thy  name,  and  establish 
Thy  kingdom  perpetually,  and  reign  over  us  in  all  eternity." 

Verse  10. — "  Thy  kingdom  come ;  Thy  vjill  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in 
heaven." 

The  first  part  is  contained  in  the  prayer  which  forms  the  conclusion  of 
every  divine  service,  and  runs  as  follows:  "We  hope  in  Thee,  O  Lord,  our 
God,  to  make  Thy  glorious  omnipotence  speedily  manifest,  and  to  establish 
Thy  heavenly  kingdom."     With  regard  to  the  second,  we  read  in  the  Talmud, 


120 

**  If  any  one  is  on  a  journey,  or  otherwise  pressed  for  time,  let  him  repeat  the 
following  short  prayer :  '  Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven,  Thy  will  be  done 
on  high.  Vouchsafe  to  bestow  a  peaceful  and  tranquil  mind  to  those  who 
honour  Thee  on  earth ;  but  do,  O  Lord,  what  seems  good  in  Thy  sighi' " 
(Berachoth,  p.  29). 

Verse  11. — "  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread." 

This  is  a  passage  in  Proverbs  (xxx.  8).  When  the  proselyte  Aquila 
Tisited  Rabbi  Eliezcr,  he  asked  him,  "  Should  the  entire  prospect  of  a  prose- 
lyte consist  merely  in  the  promise,  *  He  loveth  the  stranger,  to  give  him  bread 
and  raiment?'"  (Deut.  x.  11.)  Whereupon  the  Rabbi  answered,  "Seems 
this  so  very  little  in  thine  eyes  ?  And  yet  it  is  what  the  patriarch  asked  of 
God,  when  he  had  fled  from  his  father's  house,  viz.,  '  Give  me  only  bread  to 
eat,  and  raiment  to  put  on' "  (Bcreshith  Rabba,  Parasha  70  ) 

Verse  12. — "And  forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  forgive  our  debtors." 

The  introduction  to  night  prayers  runs  as  follows :  "  Lord  of  the  uni- 
yerse !  I  forgive  every  one  who  has  this  day  vexed  or  offended  me,  or  who 
has  injured  me,  either  bodily,  or  in  my  property  or  honour  ;  and  may  no  on« 
be  punished  by  Thee  for  my  sake."  The  conclusion  of  the  same  prayer 
reiterates,  "Fprgive,  O  Lord,  those  who  have  this  day  offended  me."  "  Which 
of  thy  noble  qualities,"  asked  the  disciples  of  their  Rabbi,  "  wouldst  thou 
particularly  recommend  us  for  imitation  ?"  "  I  never  laid  on  my  couch," 
rejoined  the  truly  pious  Rabbi,  "  harbouring  any  ill-feeling  in  my  breast 
against  any  one"  (Jer.  Taanith,  sect.  ii.  p.  67,  a). 

Verse  13. — "And  lead  us  not  into  temptation,  but  deliver  us  from  evil;  for 
thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the  power,  and  the  glory,  for  ever." 

Every  Jew,  in  his  morning  prayer,  addresses  his  supplication  to  God 
in  the  following  words ;  "  Let  us,  O  Lord,  not  fall  into  the  power  of  sin, 
transgression,  or  iniquity,  and  lead  us  not  into  temptation.  Subdue  our 
inclinations,  that  they  may  be  subservient  unto  Thee."  I  will  also  quoto 
here  the  soul-stirring  prayer  of  a  Jewish  maiden,  which  the  Talmud  has 
preserved,  and  which  was  couched  in  the  following  words :  "  Lord  of  tho 
universe  !  In  this  world  there  are  wicked  sinners  and  pious  men ;  for  the  one 
thou  hast  in  store  the  Oehinom,  for  the  other  the  Paradise.  Grant,  O  Lord, 
that  through  me  no  man  shall  fall  into  temptation,  which  leads  to  Gehinom." 
(Sota,  p.  22).  As  for  the  other  part  of  the  verse,  we  meet  with  the  identical 
words  in  the  morning  service,  and  in  the  hymn  chaunted  at  the  opening  of 
the  holy  ark  when  the  scroll  of  the  law  is  taken  out,  "  Thine,  O  Lord,  is 
the  greatness,  power,  glory,  and  majesty,"  which  is  an  original  passage  in  1 
Chron.  xxix.  11. 

Verses  14  and  15. — "  For  if  you  forgive  men  their  trespasses,  your  heavenly 
Father  will  also  forgive  you.  But  if  you  forgive  not  men  their  trespasses,  neither 
will  your  Father  forgive  your  trespasses." 

"  At  the  time  of  a  great  drought,"  relates  the  Talmud,  "  Rabbi  Eliezer 
ministered  before  the  holy  ark,  and  addressed  prayers  to  God  for  rain  ;  but 
no  rain  came,  though  he  had  recited  twenty-four  benedictions.  Next  to  him 
Rabbi  Akiba  took  his  place,  and  the  Lord  was  entreated  of  him  ;  not  because 
the  latter  was  more  pious,  but  because  ho  pardoned  those  who  had  offended 
him,  God  heard  his  prayer"  (Taanith  25,  b).  Rabba  said,  "  He  who  forgives 
trespasses  committed  against  him  by  man,  his  trespasses  will  also  be  for- 
given by  God;  for  it  is  said,  '  He  forgiveth  iniquity'  (Micah  vii.  18),  namely, 
of  him  who  himself  pardoneth  offences"  (Rosh  Hashana  17). 

Verses  16  and  17  treat  on  fasting.  The  Talmud  holds  fasting,  when 
merely  an  abnegation,  as  very  unprofitable,  and  of  very  little  merit ;  but  con- 
eiders  it,  when  often  and  deliberately  repeated,  as  sinful.  Thus  Samuel  said, 
"  He  who  mortifies  himself  by  fasting,  is  called  a  sinner ;  for  it  is  said  (Numb. 


121 

vi.  11),  '  He  shall  make  an  atonement  for  him,  for  that  he  hath  sinned  against 
his  own  body  ;'  although  he  [the  Nazarite]  had  only  abstained  from  drinking 
wine,  he  was  considered  as  having  committed  a  sinful  act"  (Taanith  11). 

Fasting  is  recommended  by  the  Talmud  as  meritorious  only,  when  it  is 
performed  simultaneously  with  true  repentance  and  other  acts  of  expiation. 
And  the  Talmud,  in  establishing  divine  service  on  a  public  fast,  ordains  that 
"one  of  the  elders  shall  exhort  the  congregation  to  repentance,  and  hold  out 
the  example  of  the  inhabitants  of  Nineveh,  of  whom  it  is  not  said, '  And  God  saw 
their  sackcloth  and  their  fastings,'  but '  God  saw  their  works,  and  that  they 
turned  from  their  evil  ways  ;  and  God  repented  of  the  evil,  that  he  did  it  not' 
(Jonah  iii.  10).  And  it  is  said  also,  '  Tear  your  hearts,  and  not  your  gar- 
ments' "  (Taanith,  sect,  ii.)  At  the  time  of  the  holy  temple,  there  was  one 
particular  section  of  priests  (Anshe  Mahamad),  who  fasted  four  days  in 
every  week:  on  the  second  day  of  the  week,  for  the  safety  of  those  who 
were  bound  on  a  voyage  across  the  sea ;  on  the  third  day,  for  those  who  were 
travelling  in  the  desert ;  on  the  fourth  day,  on  account  of  the  mortality  among 
children ;  and  on  the  fifth  day,  for  the  safe  delivery  of  women  with  child. 
But  on  Friday  and  Sabbath  they  did  not  fast,  on  account  of  the  sanctity  of 
the  Sabbath;  nor  on  Sunday,  that  the  surrounding  nations  should  not 
imagine  that  the  Jews  kept  their  weekly  day  of  rest  (which  was  at  that  time 
also  Sunday)  as  a  day  of  mourning  and  fasting  (Soph.,  sect,  17;  Halacha  5). 

Verse  16. — "Moreover,  when  ye  fast,  be  not  as  the  hypocrites,  of  a  sad 
countenance ;  for  they  disfigure  their  faces,  that  they  may  appear  unto  men  to 
fast." 

The  Bible  enumerates  an  opposite  example  of  hypocrisy  in  the  following 
passage  :  "  She  (the  hypocritical  woman)  indulges,  and  wipeth  her  mouth,  and 
saith,  I  have  done  no  wickedness"  (Prov.  xxx.  20). 

The  holy  ark  was  overlaid  with  gold  both  within  and  without  (Exodus 
XXV.  11),  from  which  we  may  derive  the  lesson,  that  the  outward  man  should 
be  in  harmony  with  the  inward  man ;  but  of  the  hypocx'ite,  whose  artful  heart 
belies  his  sanctified  mien,  it  is  said,  "  He  drinketh  iniquity  like  water"  (Job 
XV.  16),  which  shows  no  exteraal  mark  in  him  who  drinks  it  (Yoma  72,  6). 

In  conclusion,  we  must  here  remark — and  we  think  we  can  do  so  without 
being  accused  of  partiality — that  the  taunt  which  in  this  chapter  is  levelled 
against  hypocrisy,  cannot  be  addressed  to  the  Pharisees  ;  for  we  can  adduce 
the  testimony  of  their  deadliest  enemy,  in  exoneration  of  any  such  accusation. 
King  Janaeus,  whom  they  refused  to  admit  to  the  priesthood,  because  they 
questioned  the  legitimacy  of  his  birth,  and  who,  to  avenge  this  insult  (Kydu- 
shim  65,  a),  had  massacred  a  great  number  of  them ;  when  he  was  stretched  on 
the  bed  of  sickness,  and  felt  his  end  fast  approaching,  addressed  to  his  incon- 
solable queen  the  following  memorable  words :  "  Be  not  afraid  of  either 
Pharisees  or  non-Pharisees;  but  beware  of  the  hypocrites  (hatsebungim), 
who  are  capable  of  acting  as  Zimri  did  (Numb.  xxv.  14,)  and  claim  the 
reward  of  a  Phineas"  (Sota  22,  b). 

Verses  19  and  20. — "Lay  not  up  for  yourself  treasures  on  earth,  where 
moth  and  rust  do  corrupt,  and  where  thieves  break  through  and  steal ;  but  lay  up 
for  yourselves  treasures  in  heaven,  ivJiere  neither  moth  nor  rust  does  corrupt,  and 
where  thieves  do  not  break  through  and  steal," 

The  Talmud  enjoins  this  moral  more  strikingly  and  practically  by 
attributing  it  to  the  benevolent  proselyte,  Munbaz.  This  prince,  at  a  time 
of  great  famine,  distributed  his  own  treasures,  and  those  Avhich  his  ancestors 
had  hoarded  up,  among  the  poor  and  needy.  His  brethren  and  relations 
upbraided  him  with  a  conduct  which,  in  their  eyes,  was  as  improvident  as  it 
was  unwarranted.  "  Your  ancestors,"  said  they,  "  did  not  only  accumulate 
treasures  themselves,  but  increased  those  they  inherited  from  their  fore- 


122 

fathers ;  but  you  squander  your  own  and  those  of  your  ancestors."  Munbaz 
magnanimously  answered,  "  My  fathers  laid  up  treasures  on  earth,  but  I  lay 
up  treasures  in  heaven.  My  fathers  laid  up  treasures  where  they  will  not 
profit  them,  but  I  lay  up  treasures  where  they  will  yield  eternal  fruits.  My 
fathers  laid  up  treasures  whore  the  rapacity  of  man  could  rob  them,  but  I 
lay  them  up  iu  a  place  where  no  human  hand  can  reach  them.  My  fathers 
accumulated  treasures  of  money,  but  I,  ti-easures  of  souls.  My  fathers 
collected  riches  which  they  had  to  leave  to  others,  but  I  work  for  my  own 
salvation.  My  fathers  laboured  for  this  world,  and  I  for  a  better  world" 
(Baba  Bathra  11  ;  Jer.  Peah  16,  ed.  Cr. ;  Tos.  Peah,  sect.  i.). 

Verso  21. — "For  where  your  treasure  is,  there  will  your  heart  be  also.^* 

"A  wise  man's  heart  is  at  his  right,  but  a  fool's  heart  at  his  left"  (Eccl. 
X.  2.)  The  first  alludes  to  Moses,  and  the  second  to  thie  sons  of  Reuben  and 
Gad  (Numb,  xxxii.  16),  because  they  considered  earthly  possessions  above 
precious  souls  (Medrash  Rabba,  to  Matot). 

Verses  22  and  23. — "  The  light  of  the  body  is  tJie  eye :  if  tlierefore  thine  eye 
he  single,  thy  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  light ;  but  if  thine  eye  be  evil,  thy  whole 
body  shall  be  full  of  darkness.  If,  therefore,  the  light  that  is  in  thee,  be  darkness, 
how  great  is  that  darkness  !" 

I  am  not  acquainted  with  the  interpretation  Christian  theologians  put 
upon  this  passage,  but  I  will  endeavour  to  elucidate  it  by  the  following 
quotation  from  the  Talmud.  At  the  time  of  a  great  drought,  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal court  of  the  spiritual  prince  ordered  public  prayers  and  fasting,  to  entreat 
the  Lord  to  send  rain ;  but  no  rain  came  (perhaps  their  piety  was  not  of  the 
right  sort).  One  of  the  disciples,  Saeira  the  younger,  who  entertained  such 
an  opinion,  and  was  anxious  to  make  the  people  sensible  thereof,  expoimded 
the  passage  in  the  Bible  in  the  following  manner :  "  If  ought  be  committed 
through  tfie  eyes  of  the  congregation"  (Numb.  xv.  24),  which  he  explained  by 
the  following  simile  :  "  If  the  eyes  of  the  bride  are  sparkling  and  lustrous,  it 
is  a  sign  of  a  healthy  and  vigorous  constitution  ;  but  if  the  eyes  (and  thereby 
he  metaphorically  hinted  at  the  guides  and  leaders  of  the  community)  are 
dim  and  lustreless,  then  we  may  conclude  that  the  body  is  sickly  and 
unhealthy"  (Taanith  24,  a). 

Verse  24. — "  No  man  can  serve  two  masters.  .  .  .  Ye  cannot  serve 
Ood  and  Mammon.'^ 

Of  Rabbi  Mayei",  the  -(Esop  of  Talmudical  celebrity,  who  had  written 
three  hundred  fables,  which  he  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  fox,  the  Talmud 
has  preserved  the  following :  The  fox  had  taken  up  his  abode  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  wolf.  One  day  his  rapacious  neighbour  came  to  him,  and  asked  for  a 
meal,  or  else  he  would  devour  his  young  ones.  To  rid  himself  of  his  trouble- 
some guest,  the  fox  had  recoui'se  to  tho  following  trick :  He  took  the  wolf, 
under  the  promise  of  providing  him  with  a  dainty  supper,  on  a  clear  moon- 
shine night,  to  a  neighbouring  well,  where  there  were  two  buckets  suspended. 
The  fox  seated  himself  in  one  of  them,  and  by  his  own  weight  let  himself  down 
to  the  bottom  of  the  well.  When  his  dull  companion  inquired  the  reason  of 
this,  the  sly  old  fox,  pointing  to  the  reflection  of  the  moon  on  the  water, 
exclaimed,  "  What  do  I  want  down  here !  Look,  what  i-ich  cheese,  what  dainty 
viands,  and  other  good  things  are  here  in  abundance  ;  how  I  do  enjoy  them !" 
"  Wont  you  share  them  with  me  ?"  asked  the  voracious  wolf.  "By  all  means," 
rejoined  Reynard;  "there  is  the  other  bucket;  seat  thyself  in  it,  and  it  will 
bring  thee  immediately  within  reach  of  all  these  delicacies."  The  wolf  fol- 
lowed the  advice,  and  no  sooner  had  he  taken  his  seat  in  the  bucket,  than  his 
descending  weight  brought  the  fox  back  on  terra  firma,  and  he  left  the  wolf 
undisturbed,  to  feed  on  cheese  made  of  moon-shine  (Sanh.  39,  a).  This  fable, 
like  all  fables,  contains  a  moral  lesson,  and  we  will  now  endeavour  to  trace  it. 


123 

The  two  worlds — the  mundane  and  the  celestial — are  compared  to  two 
buckets,  the  one  of  which  is  continually  in  the  ascendancy,  while  the  other 
sinks.  Man  has  his  free  choice  to  choose  either  the  one  or  the  other,  but  one 
only.  Hast  thou,  O  man,  given  the  preponderance  to  the  scale  which  rises  to 
heaven  ?  Then  thou  must  not  marvel  if  thou  be  weighed  in  the  scale  of 
earthly  possessions,  and  be  found  wanting ;  thou  canst  not  possess  both  at  the 
same  time.  "If  you  have  given  yourselves  up,"  teaches  the  Talmud,  in 
another  place,  "  to  the  study  of  the  holy  law,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  neglect 
it  by  seeking  worldly  lucre,  then  you  resign,  by  the  pursuit  of  the  first,  all 
pleasure  of  this  life,  and  by  the  restless  striving  after  worldly  possessions,  you 
lose  sight  of,  and  renounce,  the  imperishable  treasures  of  a  better  world.  You 
have  created  for  yourselves  hell  on  earth,  and  hell  after  lite"  (Yoma  72), 

Verse  25. — "  Therefore,  I  say  unto  you,  take  no  thought  for  your  life,  what 
ye  shall  eat  or  what  ye  shall  drink ;  nor  yet  for  your  body,  what  ye  shall  put  on  ; 
is  not  the  life  more  than  meat,  and  the  body  than  raiment  ?" 

The  Talmud  tells  us  of  Antoninus  asking  his  friend,  the  profound  Rabbi 
Jehuda,  for  an  explanation  of  the  passage  in  Job  (xxxviii.  14),  "  It  is  turned 
as  clay  to  the  seal,  and  they  stand  as  a  garment ;"  when  Rabbi  Jehuda 
answered,  "  He  who  called  man  into  existence,  and  created  him  with  '  the 
human  face  divine,'  will  also  clothe  and  provide  him  with  all  necessaries" 
(Jer.  Kilayim,  sect.  9,  32,  b,  ed.  Cr.) 

Verses  26  and  28. — "Behold  thefowh  of  the  air;  for  they  sow  not,  neither 
do  they  reap,  nor  gather  into  barns ;  yet  your  heavenly  Father  feedeth  them.  Are 
ye  not  much  better  than  they  f  And  why  take  ye  thought  for  raiment  f  Consider 
the  lilies  of  the  field,  how  they  grow ;  they  toil  not,  neither  do  they  spin." 

A  moral,  similar  to  this,  may  be  found  in  the  Talmud.  Rabbi  Simeon 
said,  "  Did  you  ever  behold  the  lion  bearing  burdens,  the  stag  holding  harvest, 
the  fox  engaged  in  traffic,  or  the  wolf  selling  viands  ?  And  yet  they  all  find 
their  food  without  care.  How  much  more  should  this  be  so  with  man,  who 
had  been  created  to  the  service  of  the  Almighty ;  but  our  iniquities  have 
perverted  our  high  destiny,  and  brought  us  sorrow  and  care"  (Kidushin  82,  b.) 
Verse  30. — "  Wherefore,  if  God  so  clothe  the  grass  of  the  field,  which  to-day 
is,  and  to-morroiv  is  cast  into  the  oven,  shall  he  not  much  more  clothe  you  ?" 

And  God  said,  "  Thou  hast  had  pity  on  the  gourd  .  .  .  and  should 
I  not  spare  Nineveh?"  (Jonah  iv.  10).  "To  what  purpose,"  asked  a  Tal- 
mudist,  "  has  God  created  insects  and  vennin  ?"  "  They  have  been  created 
for  a  wise  end,"  was  the  rejoinder ;  "that  the  sinner  may  take  a  lesson,  and 
not  despair  of  God's  providence  and  His  paternal  love ;  for  since  God  gives 
life  to,  and  maintains,  these  useless  creatm'es,  how  much  more  will  he  do  so 
to  man"  (Jer.  Berachoth,  sect.  9,  p.  13,  ed.  Cr.) 

Verse  31. — "  Therefore,  take  no  thought,  saying.  What  shall  we  eat  ?  or  what 
shall  we  drink  ?  or  wherewith  shall  we  be  clothed  ?" 

"  He  who  makes  supplication  to  God  in  an  uncontrolled  and  ardent 
spirit,  is  considered  of  little  faith"  (Berachoth,  p.  24,  b). 

Verse  34. — "  Take,  therefore,  no  thought  for  the  morrow ;  for  to-mofrow 
shall  take  thought  for  the  things  of  itself 

Rabbi  Eliezer  said,  "  He  who  has  bread  in  his  basket  for  to-day,  and 
asks  where  he  shall  find  some  for  to-morrow,  is  of  little  faith"  (Sota  48,  6). 
Shamai  provided  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  for  the  Sabbath,  that  he 
might  not  enter  upon  the  sacred  day  unprovided;  but  Hillel's  motto  was, 
"  Blessed  be  the  Lord,  who  provides  for  our  necessities  every  day"  (Beza, 
p.  16,  a).  A  pious  man,  in  addressing  an  audience,  asked  his  listeners  the 
following  questions :  "  What  would  you  think  of  a  master  who  should 
demand  of  his  servants  the  labour,  not  only  of  days  and  years,  but  of  a  whole 
life  at  once  ?    Would  you  not  consider  such  a  demand  the  more  unreasonable, 


124 

since  the  servant  cannot  know  tlic  term  of  his  natural  life  ?  Now,  God  has 
vouchsafed  unto  us  His  paternal  care,  to  deserve  which,  we  have  duties  to 
fulfil,  which  are  incumbent  upon  us  at  certain  times,  and  which  we,  conse- 
quently, cannot  fulfil  beforehand.  How,  then,  could  we  so  um-easonably 
ask  his  bounties  for  days  and  weeks  beforehand,  which  we  are  not  even  sure 
whether  we  shall  live  long  enough  to  enjoy?"  (Hobat  Halebabot  Shaar 
Habetachon). 

MA.TTHEW,  CHAPTER  VII. 

Verse  1. — "  Judgt  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged.'^ 

"Whoso  keepeth  his  mouth  and  his  tongue,  keepeth  his  soul  froia 
trouble"  (Prov.  xxi.  23) ;  which  means,  he  who  does  not  condemn  others, 
will  also  not  be  condemned  by  the  Lord;  and  the  tongue  it  is  which  by 
pronouncing  guilt  or  innocence  against  others,  pronounces  its  own  verdict  j 
for  in  the  measure  we  judge  our  fellow-creatures,  either  charitably  or  harshly, 
we,  in  whom  the  same  feelings  are  inherent,  shall  be  judged  by  the  Supreme 
Judge  of  all  mankind,  as  we  find  from  King  David,  2  Sam.  xii.  7  (Yalkut). 
Hillel  taught  the  following  doctrine :  "  Judge  not  thy  fellow-man  until  thou 
be  similarly  situated"  (Ethics  ii.  5) ;  a  sentence  with  which  Leibnitz  fully 
coincides :  "  La  place  d'autrui  est  le  vrai  point  de  vue  pour  juger  equitable- 
ment  lorsque  on  s'y  met"  (Nouv.  Essai,  p.  48). 

Joshua  Ben  Perachyah  (who,  according  to  the  Talmud,  was  the  teacher 
of  the  founder  of  the  Christian  religion),  promulgated  the  following  doctrine : 
"Judge  all  men  (in  doubtful  and  uncertain  cases)  with  leniency"  (Ibid,  sy, 
Simeon  Ben  Shetach,  his  contemporary,  went  even  so  far  as  to  assert,  that 
the  guilty,  as  soon  as  he  received  the  sentence  and  submitted  to  the  punish- 
ment of  the  court,  should  no  longer  be  considered  as  criminal  (Ibid.  8). 

An  itinerant  trader  in  spices,  who  travelled  in  the  vicinity  of  Ziporah  (a 
town  in  Palestine)  to  sell  his  commodities,  called  aloud,  "  Who  will  buy  ? 
buy  the  balm  of  life?"  A  crowd  thronged  around  him  to  purchase  such 
elixir  of  life,  and  among  them  he  observed  Rabbi  Yanai.  "  You,  and  those 
who  resemble  you,  do  not  stand  in  need  of  my  arcanum  ;  but  you,"  turning 
to  the  crowd,  "  if  you  want  to  possess  this  life-prolonging  balm,  here  it  is." 
And  taking  the  Psalm  from  his  pocket,  he  read  aloud  to  them  :  "  Where  is 
the  man  who  desireth  life  ?  who  loveth  many  days  to  live  happy  ?  Guard 
thy  tongue  from  speaking  evil,  and  thy  lips  from  uttering  guile"  (Psalm 
xxxiv.  13,  14 ;  Rabba  to  Lev.  Parasha  16). 

Verse  2. — "  For  with  what  judgment  ye  judge,  ye  shall  be  judged ;  and  with 
what  measure  ye  meet,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again.'' 

A  similar  sentence  we  meet  with  in  the  Talmud.  Rabbi  Mayer  said, 
«'  With  what  measure  man  metes,  it  shall  be  measured  to  him  from  heaven" 
(Sanhedrin,  p.  100,  a).  Rabbi  Johanan  said,  "He  who  neglects  to  mourn 
the  death  of  a  pious  man,  shall  die  unmourned  for ;  for  with  the  measure  we 
mete,  we  shall  be  measured  again"  (Shabbat  105,  b).  "  At  the  creation  of  the 
world,  God  instituted  this  just  retribution — measure  for  measure — and  if  all 
the  laws  of  nature  should  be  reversed,  this  law  should  stand  for  ever"  (Rabba 
to  Genesis,  Parasha  10). 

Verses  3  and  4. — "  And  why  beholdest  thou  the  mote*  that  is  in  thy  brother's 
eye,  but  considerest  not  the  beam  that  is  in  thine  own  eye  f  Or  how  ivilt  thou  say 
to  thy  brother,  Let  mepidl  the  mote  out  oj"  thine  eye,  and  behold  a  beam  is  in  thine 
ovun  eye .?" 

*  Luther's  German  translation  Las  here  "  splinter,"  which  the  writer  has  fol- 
lowed, and  made  his  quotations  accordingly. 


125 

"  Woe  to  that  age  in  which  the  reproved  retorts  on  him  who  reproves 
him,  in  which  the  accused  will  sit  in  judgment  upon  those  who  judge  him ! 
Do  they  say,  *  Take  the  splinter  out  of  thine  eye ;'  he  will  answer,  '  Remove 
the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye.'  Say  they,  '  Thy  silver  has  become  dross ;' 
he  continues,  '  Thy  diinks  (doctrines)  are  mixed  with  water' "  (Baba  Bathra 
15,  b).  Rabbi  Tarphon  said,  "  It  would  greatly  astonish  me,  if  there  could 
be  any  one  found  in  this  age  who  would  receive  an  admonition ;  if  he  be 
admonished  to  take  the  splinter  out  of  his  eye,  he  would  answer,  *  Take  the 
beam  out  of  thine  own'  "  (Erachin  16,  b).  Alphasi  to  Baba  Meziah,  at  the 
end  of  the  second  section,  quotes  the  same  passage,  but  he  has  it  under  the 
following  version  :  "  Take  the  splinter  from  between  thy  teeth."  And  since 
we  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  Talmud  and  the  Evangelists  have  drawn 
from  one  and  the  same  source  in  using  this  simile — viz., the  literai-y  fragments 
preserved  from  the  schools  of  the  Pharisees — and  since  Matthew  and  Luke 
(vi.  41)  both  have  "ophthalno"  (eyes),  we  should  consider  it  but  right  to  retain 
also  the  Talmudical  version,  as  quoted  above.  But  the  fact  recommends  the 
adoption  of  the  second  version  ;  and  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  the  sense  of 
the  sentence,  "  Take  the  splinter,  or  beam,  out  of  thine  eye."  How  should 
the  splinter,  or  beam,  come  into  the  eye  ?  This  would  be  tantamoimt  to 
"swallowing  a  camel,"  or  "marching  it  through  the  eye  of  a  needle."  But 
this  simile  appears  quite  different  when  we  read  it  as  Alpliasi  does.  The 
Talmud  treats  repeatedly  of  a  case,  when  any  one  has  stolen  a  piece  of 
timber — a  beam — and  used  it  as  a  rafter  in  his  house  or  in  his  room,  whether, 
on  repenting  of  his  act  of  depredation,  he  is  obliged  to  return  the  identical 
beam,  or  restore  the  value  of  the  same.  Now,  in  our  allegory,  the  Talmud 
presumes  that  such  a  piece  of  timber  had  been  stolen  by  a  person,  and  used 
in  building  his  house.  While  squaring  this  beam,  another  came  and  picked 
up  the  splinters  that  were  chopped  off.  He  who  now  owns  the  beam,  though 
he  dishonestly  came  in  possession  of  it,  perceives  the  chip  in  the  hand  of  the 
other,  wherewith  he  picks  his  teeth.  He  taxes  him  with  appropriating  to 
himself  what  does  not  belong  to  him :  "  Take  the  splinter  out  of  your  teeth, 
that  I  may  prove  to  you  that  it  is  a  piece  off  my  beam."  The  other  man, 
however,  well  aware  of  the  dishonest  possession  of  the  beam  by  the  moraliser, 
tells  him,  with  just  indignation,  "You  reprove  me  for  the  sake  of  the  splinter; 
you  had  better  remove  the  beam,  which  is  continually  before  your  eyes  as  a 
witness  of  your  theft  and  dishonest  action." 

Verse  5. — "  TJiou  hypocrite,  first  cast  out  the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye,  and 
then  shalt  thou  see  clearly  to  cast  out  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's  eye?'' 

Resh  Lakish  said,  "  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage, '  Examine  your- 
selves, and  search'  (Zephan.  ii.  1)?  He  who  will  reprove  others,  must 
himself  be  pm-e  and  spotless"  (B.  Meziah  107,  b;  B.  Bathra  60,  6). 

Verse  6. — "  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs,  tieither  cast  ye  your 
pearls  before  swine." 

Hillel,  the  hoary-headed,  said,  "When  thou  seest  a  generation  that 
taketh  delight  in  the  law  of  God,  be  diligent  in  its  promulgation,  for  it  is 
said, '  there  is  that  scattereth,  and  yet  increaseth'  (Prov.  xi.  24)  ;  but  seest 
thou  a  generation  which  makes  light  of  the  law  of  God,  arrest  it,  for  it  is 
said  (Psalms  cxix.  125),  *  there  is  a  time  when  it  is  practicable,  for  the  Lord's 
sake,  to  make  void  the  efficacy  of  the  law'  "  (Ber.  63,  a).  "  That  there  be  no 
wailing  in  our  streets"  (Psalms  cxliv.  14),  viz.,  that  we  should  not  send  forth 
disciples  who  burn  their  victuals;  i.  e.,  the  spiritual  food  which  they  shall 
dispense  to  the  multitude ;  in  other  words,  who  disseminate  dangerous 
doctrines  (Ibid.  17,  6).  Rabbi  Hanina  asked,  "How  can  the  apparent  con- 
tradiction in  the  two  following  passages  be  reconciled  ?  It  is  said  in  one 
place,  •  Let  thy  fountains  be  dispersed  abroad'  (Prov.  v.  16) ;  and  in  another 


126 

place  we  read,  'Let  them  be  only  thine  own,  and  no  strangers'  with  thee,'  '* 
(Ibid.  V.  17)  ;  and  explains  it  thus:  "  So  thy  pupils  are  well  meaning  and  of 
good  principles,  let  thy  fountains  (of  wisdom  and  of  the  law)  pour  forth 
their  supplies  publicly  ;  and  if  not,  restrain  thyself,  and  be  reserved"  (Taanith 
7,  <i).  Not  so  rigorous,  however,  is  the  Talmud  in  its  restrictions  when  the 
reverse  is  the  case ;  and  it  permits,  at  times,  of  receiving  instruction  even 
from  the  man  whose  religious  conduct  is  not  entirely  free  from  reproach ; 
and  Rabbi  Mayer,  whose  instructor  had  been  of  that  class,  expressed  himself 
in  the  following  manner :  "  I  have  sifted  the  kernel,  but  thrown  away  the 
husk"  (Hagiga  15,  a);  with  which  opinion  Matthew  (xxiii.  3)  seems  to 
coincide. 

Verses  7  and  8. — "Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you;  seek,  and  ye  shall 
find;  knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened  unto  you.  For  every  one  that  ask«th, 
receiveth;  and  he  that  seeketh,  findeth;  and  to  him  that  knocketh,  it  shall  be 
opened." 

"  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord,  shall  be  delivered"  (Joel  ii.  32).  Rabbi  Pinchas  said,  "  It  once 
happened,  that  a  traveller,  bound  for  Tiberias,  arrived  there  late  at  night. 
The  Roman  sentinels  stopped  him,  and  questioned  him  as  to  his  whereabouts. 
The  stranger,  apprehensive  lest  the  unscrupulous  soldiers  should  deal  sum- 
marily with  him,  gave  himself  out  to  be  a  relative  of  the  Emperor  Vespasian. 
This  procured  him  better  ti'eatment  at  the  hands  of  his  jailers.  In  the 
morning,  a  report  was  sent  to  the  emperor,  who  happened  to  be  present  in 
that  town,  when  it  was  soon  ascertained  that  the  statement  was  not  true — 
that  the  stranger  not  only  was  no  member  of  the  imperial  family,  but  proved 
himself  a  son  of  that,  at  the  time,  so  cruelly  persecuted  race — the  Jews. 
Many  voices  were  raised  to  punish  the  daring  outrage  of  the  Jew,  and  urged 
the  emperor  to  visit  this  offence  against  his  majesty,  with  condign  punish- 
ment. The  magnanimous  Vespasian,  however,  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  his 
blood-thirsty  councillors,  and  replied,  '  No  one  shall  ever  have  occasion  to 
use  my  name  in  vain;  release  him.'  "When  such,"  adds  the  Talmud,  "is  the 
case  with  man,  who  is  subject  to  passions,  how  much  more  must  it  be  the 
case  with  the  Supreme  Being,  of  whom  it  is  said,  'Whosoever  calls  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  shall  be  delivered.'"  Rabbi  Alexander  said,  "During 
the  reign  of  Alexander  (of  Macedonia),  a  robber  was  caught,  whose  name 
was  also  Alexandei",  and  sentence  of  death  was  pronounced  against  him. 
When  asked  for  his  name,  he  give  it,  Alexander,  which  incident  procured 
him  an  acquittal  at  the  hands  of  the  emperor.  "  When  mortal  man,"  again 
remarks  the  Talmud,  "  acts  with  so  much  mercy,  how  much  more  is  to  be 
expected  of  Him  who  is  the  Father  of  mercy  ;  and  therefore  it  is  said,  •  He 
who  is  called  after  the  name  of  the  Lord,  shall  be  delivered' "  (Jer.  Bera- 
choth  9,  page  13,  ed.  Cr.) 

Verse  9 "  What  man  is  tJiere  of  you,  whom  if  his  son  ask  bread,  mil  he 

give  him  a  stone  V 

"  Unto  Thee  lift  I  up  mine  eyes,  O  Thou  that  dwellest  in  the  heavens. 
Behold,  as  the  eyes  of  the  servants  look  unto  the  hand  of  their  master,  and 
as  the  eyes  of  a  maiden  unto  the  hand  of  her  mistress,  so  our  eyes  wait  upon 
the  Lord  our  God,  until  that  He  have  mercy  upon  us"  (Psalm  cxxiii.  1,  2). 
The  life  of  man,  said  King  David,  is  compared  to  the  task  of  a  day-labourer, 
of  whom  it  is  said,  "  Man  is  as  a  servant  who  earnestly  desireth  the  shadow, 
and  as  a  hireling  who  looketh  for  the  reward  of  his  work"  (Job  vii.  2)  ;  and 
Thou,  O  Lord,  hast  commanded,  "  At  his  day  thou  shalt  give  him  his  hire, 
neither  shall  the  sun  go  down  upon  it,  for  he  is  poor,  and  his  life  may  depend 
on  it"  (Deut.  xxiv.  15).  "Can  I,  therefore,  look  for  less  from  Thee,  0  Lord, 
on  whom  my  whole  life  depends  ?"  (Yalkut  to  Psalms,  sect.  701). 


127 

Verse  11. — "If  ye,  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your 
children,  how  much  more  shall  yovr  father  which  is  in  heaven  give  good  things  to 
them  that  ask  him  ?" 

Turnus  Rufus,  the  Roman  general,  once  asked  R.  Akiba,  "  If  your  God 
be  the  Father  of  the  poor,  why  does  he  not  give  them  all  their  necessaries  ?" 
The  Rabbi  answered,  "  This  is  done  to  give  us  an  opportunity  to  practice 
virtue,  and  to  act  meritoriously."  "This  must,  on  the  contrary,"  rejoined 
the  other,  "make  you  appear  culpable  in  the  sight  of  your  God.  Picture  to 
yourself  a  king  who  is  wroth  against  a  faithless  servant.  He  put  him  in  a 
dreary  prison,  and  ordered  that  no  one  should  provide  him  with  food. — 
Would  he  not  be  justly  incensed  against  those  who,  in  spite  of  his  express 
command,  furnished  him  with  food  ?" — "  Your  parable  is  hardly  logical," 
replied  the  Rabbi ;  "  it  ought  to  run  thus  :  '  A  king  was  angry  with  his  son, 
and  in  the  first  ebullition  of  his  anger,  he  ordered  him  to  be  imprisoned,  and 
kept  without  food.  An  intimate  friend  of  the  king  provided  the  unhappy 
son  with  such  necessaries  as  were  indispensable  for  the  preservation  of  his 
life.  A  few  days  after,  when  the  king's  anger  was  appeased,  and  parental 
love  again  asserted  its  right,  he  inquired  after  the  fate  of  his  unhappy  son, 
and  when  he  heard  how  his  true  friend  had  preserved  the  life  of  his  child, 
would  he  not  bestow  on  him  the  highest  reward  ?'  And  we  are  called  the 
children  of  God,  for  it  is  written,  *  Ye  are  the  cliildren  of  the  Eternal,  your 
God'  "  (Baba  Bathra  10,  a). 

Verse  12. — "  Therefore,  all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  nun  should  do 
to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them ;  for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets." 

"Rabbi  Akiba  said,  'Love  thy  fellow-man  as  thyself  (Num.  xix.  18). 
this  is  the  basis  of  the  Divine  law'"  (Jer.  Nedarim  9,  p.  41,  ed.  Cr,).  Hillel 
taught,  " '  Whatever  you  should  not  like  to  be  done  unto  you,  do  not  to 
others  ;'  this  is  the  essence  of  the  Divine  law,  all  the  rest  is  comment  only" 
(Sabbath,  p.  31,  a).  If  we  consider  this  sentence  attentively,  we  shall  fiiid 
that  the  injunction  of  Hillel  is  given  in  a  negative  sense,  while  Matthew 
teaches  his  doctrine  in  a  positive  manner  ;  that  the  teacher  in  Israel  makes 
justice  the  rule  to  guide  us  in  all  our  actions,  while  the  Evangelist  sets  up 
charity  as  an  imperative  duty.  The  first  can  be  called  perfect  duties,  i.  e., 
definite,  and  applying  to  all  occasions  and  in  all  cases  ;  the  latter  imperfect 
duties,  or  such  as  allow  a  certain  latitude,  a  certain  discretion,  in  the  execu- 
tion of  the  same.  And  when  in  any  given  case  two  such  conflicting  duties 
present  themselves,  where  the  one  must  necessarily  supersede  the  other,  the 
Talmud  and  moral  philosophy  teach  that  justice  becomes  imperative,  and 
supersedes  charity.  K,  for  instance,  the  life  of  a  man  is  in  danger,  charity 
commands  as  a  duty  that  we  exert  ourselves  to  save  human  life ;  but  when 
this  can  only  be  accomplished  by  sacrificing  another  life,  the  duty  of  justice 
demands  that  this  life  should  not  be  sacrificed ;  for,  as  the  Talmud  very 
justly  remarks,  "  Who  will  tell  me  that  the  blood  of  the  one,  is  redder  (more 
precious)  than  that  of  the  other."  Thus  Hillel  based  his  sentence  on  the 
duty  of  justice,  and  adopts  it  as  a  rule  which  in  all  cases  must  be  absolute 
and  inviolable. 

Verses  13  and  14. — "  Enter  ye  in  at  the  strait  gate;  for  wide  is  the  gate 
and  broad  is  the  way  which  leadeth  to  destruction,  and  many  there  be  which  go 
in  thereat.  Because  strait  is  the  gate,  and  narrow  is  the  way,  which  leadeth  unto 
life,  and  few  there  be  that  find  it." 

The  Talmud  has  a  similar  saying :  " '  I  have  laid  before  you,  life  and  death, 
blessing  and  curse'  (Deut.  xxx.  19).  Now  any  one  might  say,  Since  the 
Lord  has  placed  before  me  two  ways,  the  way  of  life  and  the  way  of  death, 
is  it  left  to  my  own  free  choice  in  which  to  walk  ?  Therefore,  it  is  said, 
"  Choose  Life."     On  a  certain  highway,  two  roads  branched  otf  in  opposite 


128 

directions;  the  one,  level  and  straight  in  the  beginning,  soon  turned  out 
rugged,  and  over-grown  with  thorns  and  briers ;  the  other  proved  itself, 
when  first  taken,  to  be  narrow,  and  beset  with  many  difficulties,  but  ulti- 
mately led  smoothly  and  without  interruption,  to  the  desired  goal.  Many 
were  led  astray  by  the  promising  prospect  of  the  first,  but  on  taking  it,  they 
would  never  have  reached  the  desired  end,  had  not  a  kind-hearted  cicerone 
stepped  in,  and  directed  them  on  their  right  course.  Thus  spake  Moses  to 
Israel :  '  You  see  that  the  path  of  the  wicked  is  prosperous,  and  that  the 
sun  of  prosperity  shines  on  their  way ,  but  be  not  deceived  by  appearances  ; 
life  on  earth  is  only  as  a  few  short  steps  when  compared  to  life  eternal.  If 
it  presents  itself  as  strewn  with  roses,  they  only  conceal  the  abyss  which  they 
cover,  and  which  leads  to  destruction ;  for  it  is  said,  '  the  wicked  have  no 
future'  (Prov.  xxiv.  20).  You  again  behold  the  path  of  the  righteous  dismal 
and  dreary,  and  beset  with  many  difficulties ;  but  this  is  only  at  the  first 
set-out,  for  in  the  end  it  will  be  lighted  up  by  the  light  of  eternal  bliss,  as  it 
is  said,  '  The  path  of  the  just  is  as  the  shining  light,  that  shineth  more  and 
more  unto  the  perfect  day'  (Ibid.  v.  18) ;  choose,  ye,  therefore,  the  latter 
path,  it  is  the  way  that  leads  to  life"  (Yalkut  to  Deut.  xi.  6). 

Verse  16. — "  Ye  shall  know  them  hy  their  fruits. ^^ 

Not  only  has  the  Bible  many  instances  where  man  is  likened  unto  a 
tree,  and  his  actions  unto  the  fruit  thereof  (Psalms  i.  3  ;  Isaiah  iii,  10  ;  brv. 
21),  but  we  repeatedly  meet  with  this  simile  in  the  Talmud.  The  Medrash 
explains  the  passage  in  Ezekiel  xvii.  24,  "And  all  the  trees  of  the  field  shall 
know  that  I,  the  Lord,  have  brought  down  the  high  tree,  have  exalted  the 
low  tree" — "  Alu  Haberioth"  as  referring  to  man,  as  it  is  written,  "  For  the 
man  is  as  the  tree  of  the  field"  (Rabba  to  Exodus,  Parasha  53).  Why  is  the 
foliage  of  the  fruit-tree  less  exuberant  and  less  noisy  than  that  of  the  forest- 
tree  ?  We  can  well  dispense  with  both  (answer  the  first) ;  we  are  distin- 
guished by  the  delicious  fruits  we  bear,  and  need  not  noise  about  our 
existence  ;  while  the  others  only  make  themselves  conspicuous  by  their  noise 
and  rustling  (Rabba  to  Ex.,  Parasha  16). 

Verse  17. — "Even  so  every  good  tree  hringeth  forth  good  fruit;  hut  a 
corrupt  tree  hringeth  forth  evil  fruit." 

The  Talmud  teaches  as  follows :  "  Virtue  alone  is  productive  of  goodly 
fruits,  which  yield  abundance,  not  only  for  the  time  being,  but  also  for  the 
future*;  nay,  bring  blessings  to  posterity  even  after  death.  Sin,  on  the 
contrary,  is  barren,  gives  only  momentary  gratification,  and  its  offspring  are 
repentance  and  sorrow"  (Kidushin  40;  Jer.  Peah  i.  p.  16,  6;  Aboth  of  R. 
Nathan  40 ;  Yalkut  to  Psalm  Ixii.,  Isa.  iii.). 

Verse  19. — "Every  tree  that  hringeth  not  forth  good  fruit  is  hewn  down  and 
cast  into  the  fire." 

Rabbi  Johanan  said,  "  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptural  passage, 
*  For  the  man  is  as  the  tree  of  the  field :  for  thou  eatest  thereof,  and  thou 
shalt  not  cut  it  down'  (Deut.  xx.  19)  ?  So  thy  teacher  is  both  pious  and 
virtuous,  enjoy  the  fruit  of  his  learning,  and  try  assiduously  to  preserve  him ; 
but  if  not,  it  is  said  of  him,  '  That  tree,  however,  of  which  thou  knowest  that  it 
beareth  no  fruit,  thou  mayest  destroy  and  cut  it  down'  "  (Ibid.  20;  Taan.  7). 

Verse  21. — '•'  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  fieaven  ;   but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  the  Father  which  is  in  heaven." 

"  The  Lord  is  nigh  unto  all  them  that  call  upon  him"  (Psalms  cxlv.  18). 
Do  not  think  that  he  is  so  to  all  who  do  so  indiscriminately  :  for  it  is  added, 
"  only  to  those  who  call  upon  him  in  truth  "  "  Truly,  the  Lord  is  good  unto 
Israel"  (Psalm  Ixxiii.  1)  ;  but  imagine  not  to  all  without  distinction  ;  for  it  is 
qualified  by  the  conclusion  of  the  same  verse,  "  only  to  those  who  are  of  a 
pure  heart"  (Yalkut  to  Psalms,  chap.  73 ;  Rabba  to  Lev.,  Parasha  17). 


^^.-r^^w'^m^S 


I 


